Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Housing (Condensation)

Mrs. Bain: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what current discussions he is holding with local authorities on the prevention and cure of condensation in local authority housing.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): My right hon. Friend decided, following discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, to ask authorities to examine the incidence of condensation in their housing stock and to give high priority to remedial measures in their housing plans.

Mrs. Bain: I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he give us an indication of when he expects COSLA to have completed this survey? On publication of the survey, will the Scottish Office reconsider its decision not to make available special funds for remedial action undertaken by local authorities? In the long term, will the Minister look particularly at the design of houses, since it seems to be a specific design which leads to this problem?

Mr. Brown: I am sorry, but the hon. Lady is wrong in two out of three of her comments. COSLA is not conducting a survey. The Government have asked housing authorities to take stock of their problems in their areas and to advise the Government of the extent of them. Secondly, the Government are considering this matter. We have not taken any decision. Funds are available. I am sorry that the hon. Lady is

shaking her head. We have made the situation clear to local authorities, and we have not restricted any authority which wants to carry out remedial work. Money has been made available for insulation in both the public and the private sectors. Therefore, there is no lack of energy or enthusiasm on the part of the Government to cure this problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that we shall have short questions and answers.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the Minister aware that council tenants in my constituency have been told by the housing department that breathing is one of the main causes of condensation and they have been advised accordingly? Is he further aware that housing departments are terrified of accepting responsibility for this problem because of the scale of expenditure that would be required? Will the Government give all the help that they can?

Mr. Brown: The answer is "Yes, the Government will give all the help they can ", but it does not add much to the understanding of the problem to treat this matter light-heartedly. There is a genuine problem in educating tenants, though that is not the whole story. However, the Government certainly want action to be taken and it must be taken by housing authorities.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that we shall warmly welcome whatever action he feels he can take regarding this matter? However, does he not think it strange that when a private house has dampness in it the owner eliminates it by putting the matter right, whereas when a public tenant has dampness in his house it is called condensation and he is told that nothing can be done about it?

Mr. Brown: That is too superficial an observation for me to respond to. We do not know the extent of this problem in the private sector. I am responsible for the public sector, and I repeat that we are anxious to find a solution to this serious problem.

Careers Officers (Dispute)

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the impact of the careers officers' dispute on the youth opportunities programme and


engineering training services sponsorship scheme in Tayside.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Gregor MacKenzie): I cannot usefully add to what I told the hon. Member on 15th November. The Government remain very concerned at the effects of this dispute upon young people in Tayside.

Mr. Wilson: Does the Minister realise that this dispute has been running for some five months and that with the arrival of the Christmas school leaving date a large number of school leavers will be thrown into unemployment because of a lack of facilities under the youth opportunities scheme? Will he either persuade the parties concerned to arbitrate on the issue or intervene to secure a national review of the careers service so that a solution can be found to the situation on Tayside?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am bound to say to the hon. Gentleman that in all conscience I do not feel that comments by Ministers from the Dispatch Box during an industrial dispute are terribly helpful. It is something that genuinely worries me, the more so since, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Christmas school leaving date is approaching. However, ACAS is working on this dispute, and if it is thought that either myself or my right hon. Friend can be of any value in doing something about it we shall certainly be prepared to offer our services.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as well as training opportunities there must also be employment opportunities for those who have trained? Is he aware that in Brechin, in my constituency in Tayside, the Matrix Engineering firm has already declared over 20 people redundant and that another 40 are in the process of being made redundant? Will he do what he can to make sure that we have a viable engineering industry in Tayside to take advantage of these facilities?

Mr. MacKenzie: Yes, I certainly shall. The hon. Gentleman was kind enough to talk to me about this matter some time ago. I have asked my Department to look at the Matrix situation. If there is any scheme which can be put forward to me which will make the project more viable and provide extra jobs in the area,

my right hon. Friend and myself will consider it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In view of what the Minister said about the seriousness of this problem and the length of the dispute, does he appreciate that complex problems of regrading are involved, and that there appears to be doubt in the minds of the council as to exactly what is permitted in regrading under pay policy and what will be permitted for reckonable expenditure for rate support grant purposes? Will the Minister be willing to get in touch with the council to make sure that any questions of doubt are removed and to make it clear publicly that if an initiative by himself or the Secretary of State would be helpful at this stage he would be willing to take it speedily?

Mr. MacKenzie: I think that, in the first instance, as I said a few moments ago, the sensible thing is to allow ACAS to proceed with this matter as well as it can, and it is doing that. But if there are any further initiatives which will bring an end to this very sad and sorry tale, I shall certainly be prepared to consider them.

Mr. Welsh: Is the Minister aware that Tayside regional councillors have refused to meet the striking careers officers or the unions in order to resolve this long-running strike and that that had led to a collapse of the youth oportunities programme? Will he, therefore, do everything in his power to try to get the parties together as quickly as possible in order to help these youngsters?

Mr. MacKenzie: There is one thing that it has not stopped. It has not stopped people offering to make these opportunities available. Because of the careers officers dispute it is difficult to find young people to take up these opportunities. But, as I said earlier, I think that in the meantime the sensible thing is to leave the matter to ACAS. If it is thought that any intervention on my part would be helpful, I should certainly consider that.

Murder and Violent Crime (Convicted Persons)

Mr. MacCormick: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is satisfied with


the present arrangements for the imprisonment of those convicted of murder or other violent crimes who are found to have serious personality disorders.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Bruce Milian): Some prisoners who suffer from serious personality disorders may from time to time present problems of management. I am satisfied that the arrangements for the custody of such prisoners provide adequate protection for the public.

Mr. MacCormick: Does the Secretary of State agree, however, that his reply indicates that there might be a gap in the system and that something ought to exist between ordinary prisoners and the State hospital at Carstairs for dealing with people such as this? We appreciate that the public are safeguarded, but we ought to think also of the needs of these prisoners.

Mr. Milian: I think that the number of prisoners who present very serious problems because of personality disorders is quite small. They are, of course, in prison. I am not sure that the case has been made out for some special kind of accommodation for these prisoners, but Carstairs exists for dealing with prisoners in appropriate cases and we transfer prisoners there from time to time. It is very difficult to make sure that we have the right kind of accommodation for every kind of personality disorder that might manifest itself in prisoners.

Mr. Buchan: On the wider question of other prisoners convicted of violent crimes, has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility of the extension of the special unit elsewhere? What lessons has he learnt from it?
Secondly, will my right hon. Friend guarantee that he will not bring back into use the infamous cages at Inverness?

Mr. Milan: On the second point, there is a Question a little later on the Order Paper. On the first point, I have recently offered both the SPOA and the prison governors the opportunity to discuss whether we should have special units within the prison system, either on the Barlinnie special unit lines or on any other lines that they may suggest to us. That matter is under active consideration.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the special unit at Barlinnie has served an extremely important purpose within the Scottish prison service and that its success is an example to prison services elsewhere? Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will keep his mind open on how this unit develops and whether there ought to be other units with a slightly more psychiatric bent, without, perhaps, going to the length of the State hospital in Carstairs?

Mr. Millan: I accept what the hon. Gentleman said in the first part of his question, but, unfortunately, there are certain prisoners who have been sent to the Barlinnie special unit but have not settled down there. The unit has not proved suitable for them. It is extremely difficult to get the right kind of provision for the comparatively few very troublesome prisoners that we have in the system at present.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Secretary of State aware that in Peterhead prison we have a very large number of prisoners serving long sentences and that this imposes a very heavy strain on the prison officers who are working in what can only be described as nineteenth century conditions? Is the Secretary of State able to tell us what plans he has for the future of Peterhead prison to make the officers' work more effective and more congenial?

Mr. Millan: I cannot say offhand what plans there might be for Peterhead, but I am aware that there are some very difficult prisoners in there. I am also aware that they are handled extremely well.

Feral Mink

Mr. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to exterminate feral mink.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: Responsibility for control of feral mink rests with the occupiers of land, but my Department is ready to advise on suitable control measures.

Mr. Thompson: Is not the Minister being extremely complacent? Why are the Government so certain that they could exterminate feral mink if rabies came to this country, when they are unable to do anything about it when it


is a question of saving poultry on the upland farms or our native species of birds from this voracious, alien carnivore, as it has been so rightly called recently—[An HON. MEMBER: "Dennis Canavan."] —though obviously not by the Minister?

Mr. Brown: I am not being complacent. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) does not need time to think. He can come back on that for himself.
This is a serious problem. I can only repeat that we are concerned about it. But obviously, in general, it is the policy of the Department to place the responsibility on those who are affected by this pest.

Mr. Grimond: The Minister says that this is a serious problem. Will he say what hard information he has about it? How many of these wild mink are there? What do they live on? Has the Minister any estimate of the damage that they do?

Mr. Brown: As far as I know, they are not particularly prevalent on either Orkney or Shetland, although I know that there is a local problem. I do not think that anyone knows how many there are. It is certainly a problem in some areas. This is a serious matter. Feral mink have one unfortunate habit. They kill more than they need to eat. That makes them rather unpleasant.

Road Traffic Laws (Breath Tests)

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects his current discussions with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to result in the implementation of section 8 of the Road Traffic Act.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): My right hon. Friend has told the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities that he proposes to bring section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1974 into force from 1st April 1979.

Mr. Robertson: That is a very helpful reply. In the meantime, however, will my hon. Friend give the House some indication that there will be some alleviation of the appalling lack of facilities for training motor cyclists, bearing in mind

that in the last year fatalities to motor cyclists were an all-time record figure?

Mr. McElhone: Section 8 puts a duty on local authorities to promote road safety, rather than just confirming the power that they had previously. I realise that the number of accidents to motor cyclists represents a serious problem, and I shall convey what has been said to my ministerial colleagues who deal with it at the Scottish Office.

Vehicle Excise Duty

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimates he has made of the effect on transport in rural areas of Scotland of the proposals contained within the Department of Transport's document on the future of vehicle excise duty.

Mr. Monro: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consultations he had with local authorities and groups involved with rural communities before the publication of the Department of Transport's document on the future of vehicle excise duty.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: As my right hon. Friend told the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) on 27th November, the Government's information paper gives details of the decision to change from vehicle excise duty to an enhanced petrol tax and discusses the factors taken into account in reaching this decision.

Mr. Steel: Is the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said that this should not have any serious effect in the rural areas, and that in saying that he is under a complete misapprehension? Will the Minister take note of the representations from industry and from individuals in the rural areas? Will he accept that Scottish Members tend to look to the Scottish Office to protect their interests, not just those within its statutory responsibilities but in relation to other Government Departments? At present, given the transport document and the rate support grant proposals, the Scottish Office is giving the impression that it is writing off the rural areas of Scotland.

Mr. MacKenzie: Scottish Office Ministers always take these matters into


consideration and convey views to their colleagues. I do not take the same view about the rural remoteness as I have seen taken by the right hon. Gentleman. I believe that it will be as much to the advantage of those who live in rural areas as it will be to others. Indeed, many people who live in rural areas will be able to put a motor car on the road when they could not previously have afforded to do so.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister accept that most people find it incomprehensible that his Department does not seem to have consulted those who know something about the countryside and rural areas? How can he stand at that Dispatch Box and say that this will not affect the rural areas? Of course it will. Does not the Minister appreciate that it may cost an extra £70 to do 15,000 miles a year, which is a very average home-to-work distance in Scotland, and that all these people, and motor cyclists in particular, will be exceptionally heavily penalised?

Mr. MacKenzie: There is one thing that ought to be made crystal clear. We have said it in the documents, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport has said it several times. Taking an average journey of about 16 miles to work, and so forth, there will still be a margin of about 3,000 extra miles, and I believe that this will be to the advantage of people living in rural areas.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many of us are surprised at his assertion that people in rural areas will be better off under these proposals? Would he care to make available some detailed figures to prove the case that he is trying to put forward?

Mr. MacKenzie: I do not think that I need to go further than I have. I have said that there is a substantial margin and that people in rural areas who could not afford to put a motor car on the road will now be able to do so.

Mr. Watt: In view of the representations today from all parts of the House, will the Minister take a fresh look at this problem and ask his colleague at the Ministry of Transport to judge the effect that it will have on many workers who live in rural areas, who are on low wage rates and who will find that they are

better off staying at home than going to work?
Will the Minister pay attention also to the damage that this scheme will do to the rural delivery services in Scotland? Many of them will have to go off the road if the measure is implemented.

Mr. MacKenzie: The hon. Gentleman knows that all these matters will have to go through the House of Commons and that when that happens he will be able to make the speech that he has just made.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is the Minister aware that many people in rural areas, after reading the Government's answers today, will get the impression that the Government are living in cloud-cuckoo-land? Will he make a point of trying to find out more about the views of those in rural areas, and will he bear in mind that many people in those areas have no option but to use cars as they have to travel considerable distances to work?

Mr. MacKenzie: I am bound to say that there is always a bit of conflict between rural areas and urban areas in a matter of this kind. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to consult the electors of Castlemilk and Newlands and then come back to me.

Mr. Carmichael: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is basically a long-awaited change in the licensing law for vehicles and that, as he said, many people in rural areas will find that, for the first time, they are able to operate a motor car? The initial standing charge is the reason why it has been impossible for many people to run a car. If my right hon. Friend goes to parts of Argyll he will see cars on blocks. They are not able to be used because of the initial cost of putting them on the road.

Mr. MacKenzie: My hon. Friend is right. The matter was given a great deal of thought. The whole question of rural areas was very carefully considered, as were the problems of those who live in the urban areas, and it was on this basis that the Government took the decision.

Mr. Monro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Due to the thoroughly complacent reply of the Minister, I beg to give notice that I shall seek an early opportunity of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Secondary School Teachers

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current shortage of secondary school teachers in Fife and other local authorities in Scotland, and of Kirkcaldy high school in particular; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McElhone: My right hon. Friend hopes to publish soon a statistical bulletin about pupil and teacher numbers at September 1978 and I shall write to my hon. Friend at that time.

Mr. Gourlay: I appreciate the Minister's reply, but is he aware of the disquiet among parents because of the staffing crisis in secondary schools in Scotland, which arises mainly from implementation of the red book standards? Will he comment on that?

Mr. McElhone: I think that perhaps that is a slight exaggeration from my hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in these matters. We now have 1,500 secondary teachers above the agreed standards, which is more than we had in previous years, and the pupil-teacher ratio in secondary schools, as in primary schools, is the best that we have ever had in Scottish education. It is now 14·5, and that is much better than the figure in the rest of the country.

Mrs. Bain: I hate to interrupt the Under-Secretary of State while he is patting himself on the back with statistics yet again, but will he look very carefully at the system of appointments to promoted posts, which prevents people from outwith the Strathclyde region applying for promoted posts in that area, including shortage subjects, such as technical subjects?

Mr. McElhone: I understand the hon. Lady's point, because she has written to me about it. The point about promoted posts is that Strathclyde can find enough people from within its area for promoted posts. The shortage is of ordinary classroom teachers, and I do not deny that we have a problem in shortage subjects such as physics, technical education and principally mathematics. We are looking at the question. I have had meetings with the Educational Institute for Scotland, the Scottish Secondary Teachers Association and Strathclyde region.
My right hon. Friend met the convention last Friday and we are having urgent meetings with our officials to see whether we can overcome what is a serious problem in Strathclyde region.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is not there a danger that the Minister's reply may be taken as being a little too complacent? There are still serious shortages in parts of the country. Is it not a fact that Ministers over-reacted in cutting down the number of students entering training colleges? Has not that been confirmed by the joint survey carried out by the EIS at Jordanhill college? Is not there a great danger that the error is being repeated? What action will the Minister take to make sure that it does not happen again?

Mr. McElhone: I am sorry that the hon. Member has got it wrong again, but he should know, because it has been said often enough at this Dispatch Box by my right hon. Friend and myself, that there is no restriction at all on young people coming forward for these shortage subjects. We have a dilemma with certain subjects, where we have a surplus because of the falling birth rate, and I think that everyone accepts that. My right hon. Friend announced last Friday that we shall be starting a publicity campaign particularly for these shortage subjects, which is where our problem lies. As I said earlier, I shall be having urgent meetings with the various bodies concerned to try to overcome the problem.

Mr. Buchanan: Will my hon. Friend take it from me that we wish him well in his efforts to get extra staff for the schools of Scotland? But will he, in conjunction with the leaders of the trade union concerned, whose moralistic attitude towards the deprived areas has not been borne out by the strikes in schools in these deprived areas, convey to them that they are not doing the deprived areas any good but are making the deprived children even more deprived by their pharisaical attitude?

Mr. McElhone: I could not agree more, and I think that I have the support of the House in condemning these unofficial strikes, particularly in the deprived areas. There is no point in my right hon. Friend and myself pushing in extra teachers—500 extra teachers mostly into Strathclyde for deprived areas plus over 160


teachers through the urban aid programmes—when we find that action is taken by the union concerned and that it tends to be in the most deprived areas. I would not deny anyone the right to withdraw his labour, but he should have regard to the area from which he withdraws it.

Overseas Footballers

Mr. Canavan: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will discuss with the Scottish Sports Council the effect on Scottish sport of Government policy concerning the employment of footballers from other countries.

Mr. McElhone: Such discussion is not necessary as my right hon. Friend is already aware of the views of the national football bodies in Scotland.

Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the refusal of a work permit to the Hibs Norwegian player, Izak Refrik, indicates that the Department of Employment is being autocratic and intransigent and that it is hopelessly out of touch with the needs of Scottish football, which would be the poorer if players such as Refrik were forced to leave? In view of this and the apparent differences of opinion on this matter between the Scottish Office and the Department of Employment, will my hon. Friend refer the matter to the Prime Minister in the hope of coming to a favourable common sense decision?

Mr. McElhone: I am afraid that exaggeration seems to be the order of the day so far at Question Time. I have attended two meetings at the Department of Employment, and I do not concede the expression that my hon. Friend has used about my hon. Friend at that Department. After all, Hibernian football club caused this problem itself. It received advice from the Department of Employment about work permits, yet it still brought in these young players.
The criteria set down by the Department of Employment are well known. It is no secret that I disagree with the criteria, as do the Scottish Football Association and the players, union in Scotland. We have the difficulty that the players' union in England and, indeed, the Welsh Football Association and foot-

ball authorities in England want to maintain the status quo, that is to say, the present criteria. But there is an understanding about the Scottish position because of the numbers of people who attend Scottish matches, apart from Rangers and Celtic matches, and those of one or two other clubs.

Finally,—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A yellow card is indicated.

Mr. McElhone: If you knew how sensitive this issue was in Scotland, Mr. Speaker, you would be giving out red cards across the way.
Discussions are still going on. We hope that common sense will prevail in this matter.

Mr. Crawford: I congratulate the hon. Member for West Stirlingshire (Mr. Canavan) on discovering that this place discriminates against Scotland. Will he, the Labour Party and the Conservative Party be intellectually honest with them-selves—

Mr. Gordon Wilson: Impossible.

Mr. Crawford: —and realise that if they talk about Scotland as a separate foot-balling nation, the logical sequel is that it should be a separate political nation?

Mr. McElhone: I do not want to waste the time of the House by answering that question.

Mr. Monro: Does the Minister accept that he and the Government are making astonishingly heavy weather over allowing this gifted young footballer to play for Hibernian? Does he also agree that he has given the complete lie to ministerial responsibility, in that his view is totally contrary to that of a fellow colleague in the Government? Surely the position cannot be allowed to remain as he stated it today. Will he give a categoric assurance that he will go to the Department of Employment this afternoon, agree to discuss the matter, be flexible and allow this young lad to play football in Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman, who has sporting interests at heart, should know that it is not for me or for other Ministers to make a decision on the spot. We have to consult the various football


bodies. This is not a sporting problem but a work permit one. We have to be careful that in solving the problem of a Hibernian football player we do not abuse the work permit system in general.

Aliment and Periodical Allowances

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has any proposals for the amendment of the law relating to aliment and periodical allowances with particular reference to methods of enforcement of payment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): My right hon. Friend has at present no proposals to amend the substantive law relating to aliment and periodical allowances.
The collection and enforcement of such payments is currently being examined by the Scottish Law Commission as part of its examination of the law of diligence.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that the Council of the Law Society in Scotland is extremely anxious that legislation should be introduced as soon as possible as hardship is being caused in many cases where enforcement cannot be made?

Mr. Ewing: I am aware of the point made by the hon. Gentleman. The Council has written to my Department. It is expected at this stage that the Law Commission will publish a report on this aspect of its work without having any further consultations. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and myself are anxious about what is a real problem.

Mrs. Bain: Does the Minister accept that there will be great disappointment among many one-parent families in Scotland that there are no immediate plans to alter these laws? Will he, on an interim basis, look particularly at the cross-border situation, because many divorcees dependent on family income supplement, when they try to enforce aliment payments from husbands who have crossed into England, are told by the legal aid companies that they must pay as much as £300?

Mr. Ewing: I know of the problem. I hope that we can resolve it, at least in part, early in the new year. The decrees granted in the Court of Session in Scotland and registered in the High Court

here can be registered in the courts in England. That will make collection much easier and more convenient. We hope to take care of that problem early in the new year.

Scottish Assembly

Mr. Galbraith: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the latest estimate of the total annual cost of running an Assembly to cover the upkeep of the building, the salaries and pensions of extra civil servants and other staff required, and of the Assemblymen, together with any allowances proposed to be paid and the cost of the Executive.

Mr. Harry Ewing: In the explanatory and financial memorandum to the Scotland Bill £13 million was the estimate of total extra annual costs in Scotland consequent on devolution. That figure remains correct to within 1 per cent. or 2 per cent.

Mr. Galbraith: Is not £13 million a substantial sum of money? Does the Minister realise that if it costs £13 million to set up the Assembly there will be £13 million a year less for other services, such as education, health or home helps for the needy? Will he, on behalf of the Government, make clear in the referendum campaign that a "Yes" vote will mean more cash for the bureaucracy and less for the needs of the people?

Mr. Ewing: It is, indeed, a substantial amount of money, but it is only one-half of 1 per cent. of the total of all public expenditure that will be spent by the Assembly.

Mr. Galbraith: It is a lot of money.

Mr. Ewing: It is important for the House to understand that we discussed this matter earlier and that the £13 million was approved. I promise to make many things clear during the referendum campaign. Perhaps I can do a deal with the hon. Gentleman. If he can get his colleagues to make some of their policies clear, that will help the debate.

Mr. Grimond: Is the Minister aware that the House of Commons depends greatly on its Clerks and the staff of the Library and that if anything were to happen to them the House would soon grind to a halt? What steps are being


taken to ensure that staff of equivalent calibre are being trained, seconded or recruited for work at the Scottish Assembly?

Mr. Ewing: We have two Deputy Principal Clerks from the House of Commons on secondment to the Scottish Office to consider the very point made by the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dewar: Does my hon. Friend accept that many people in Scotland would see the expense to which reference has been made as a small item in the total balance sheet, and that if the Assembly were to provide a more responsive and flexible Government structure in Scotland than the United Kingdom has done it would be money well spent? Is he not a little depressed that when there are so many major constitutional arguments in the balance the Opposition should continually go in for these miserable penny-pinching arguments and scares about expenditure rather than deal with real issues?

Mr. Ewing: I never get depressed by the Opposition. I allow them to wallow in their own depression.
The expenditure, as I said, is only one-half of 1 per cent. of the total expenditure for which the Assembly will be responsible. If we get only that one-half of 1 per cent. better return on capital the Assembly will pay for itself and no cost will be involved.

Mr. Reid: Will not the cost of the Assembly be about the price of a box of matches, or 5p a week to each individual in Scotland? Is not that a miniscule sum compared with the enormous expenditure on the regions? Is it not clear that, once the Assembly is set up, there will have to be a reorganisation of local government, and that if the regions go, that will be a significant saving?

Mr. Ewing: I am not sure about the reorganisation of local government, because that is not my responsibility. If reorganisation of local government were to take place, I seriously doubt whether it would be based on evidence given by the Scottish National Party, which has suggested that all townships in Scotland should be based on motorways. Therefore, instead of having the Falkirk district

council, we would have the M9 district council. That would not be acceptable.

Mr. Sproat: How much money has been spent so far on adapting the building for a Scottish Assembly and all related matters? What contingency plans do the Government have, when the people of Scotland vote "No" in the referendum, to salvage some value to the taxpayer out of this costly white elephant?

Mr. Ewing: We have spent approximately £2·2 million. The contingency will not arise, because I understand that the new tune that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) is playing on his chanter is that thę Tories in Scotland are in favour of devolution. I assume that even their plans would require a building.

Mr. Buchan: Does my hon. Friend find it astonishing that the Scottish National Party, which has such a hatred of local government and local democracy, wishes to unscramble the regions and districts?
Secondly, will he please go very carefully on the question of seconding Clerks from the House of Commons to the Assembly? If it is to have any merit, with the British democratic structure as a lesson, it will have to be managed in a more open and democratic way than we have developed over the years here.

Mr. Ewing: I do not think that there would be any votes for any political party which suggested that the people of Scotland should go in for another massive reorganisation of local government.
Regarding the secondment of Clerks, we have two expert people and we are glad of the assistance that they are giving us.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I should like to make it clear that we shall be campaigning for a "No" vote. Is the Minister aware that if there were a free vote we and the majority of hon. Members in the House could think of many more useful ways of spending £13 million a year in Scotland than on this costly bureaucratic nonsense?

Mr. Ewing: The House will be delighted to learn that the Tories in Scotland are now against devolution. Last week they were in favour of it. This week they have changed their tune and are now against it. As the referendum campaign


goes on, no doubt their attitude will change almost from day to day. I think that most people who follow the hon. Member for Cathcart do so not out of loyalty, but out of curiosity.

Domestic Rates

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the average percentage increase in domestic rates in 1979–80 compared with the previous year.

Mr. Millan: I estimate that, taking into account the effect of the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1978, which the House is due to debate tomorrow, the average percentage increase in domestic and other rates in Scotland in 1979–80 should be well within single figures.

Mr. Younger: Is not this bad news for ratepayers, since the Government's policy is to restrict their wage increases to 5 per cent.? Is the Secretary of State aware that there is widespread anger in the rural areas because of the Government's gerrymandering of the rate support grant, which means that rural areas which are not Socialist will have to pay for years of Socialist neglect of our cities?

Mr. Millan: That is a ludicrous accusation. It is also a scandalous one, because these matters are discussed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Mr. Younger: Local authorities are very angry.

Mr. Millan: They are not.

Mr. Younger: I have had letters from them.

Mr. Millan: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman has had letters from some Scottish local authorities. But the extent of the redistribution is extremely modest. It amounts to about £4 million to £5 million out of a total rate support grant settlement of well over £1,000 million next year. I shall be delighted to debate this matter extensively tomorrow. I hope that Conservative Members who are complaining about this will be here, because last year they were conspicuous by their absence.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, we must make quicker progress, and I shall call fewer hon. Members to ask supplementary questions.

Mr. Gourlay: Has my right hon. Friend received representations from Fife regional council against the proposed rate support grant because of the additional amount of money which is being allocated to Glasgow and the West of Scotland? Will he assure the House that before he presses the matter to a Division tomorrow night he will reconsider the representations from the various regional authorities?

Mr. Younger: Now answer my question.

Mr. Millan: It is no use my hon. Friend or anyone else talking about the problems of deprived urban areas in Scotland, unless they are willing to face some of the implications. What I have done this year is to make a modest redistribution. Incidentally, it is a good deal more modest than happens in England regularly under both Conservative and Labour Governments. I stand by that redistribution. It is a very modest one, indeed, and I shall be delighted to debate the matter tomorrow night, regardless of the views of the Fife regional council or anyone else.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman understand the reality of this? For example, in a village in my constituency, a garage which was formerly rated at £930 is now rated at £4,309. That is the sort of increase that people cannot sustain, especially those who are trying to run small businesses.

Mr. Millan: With great respect, that has absolutely nothing to do with the rate support grant order. It has to do with revaluation. I repeat that last year domestic ratepayers in Scotland paid 6 per cent. less rates than they did in the previous year. That is the reality of the valuation for domestic ratepayers. Next year, these same domestic ratepayers will pay increased rates of well within 10 per cent. In my view, taking the two years together, domestic ratepayers in Scotland will pay no more than they did in 1977–78. That is very good news for domestic ratepayers.

Carse of Gowrie

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received concerning the transfer of Langforgan and other villages in the Carse of Gowrie from Dundee District to Perth and Kinross District.

Mr. Gregor MacKenzie: None.

Mr. Crawford: Is the Minister aware of the great dissatisfaction among villagers in the Carse of Gowrie? They used to be part of the Perth county council and they wish to revert to Perth and Kinross district council. Will he make representations to the Boundary Commission about this?

Mr. MacKenzie: I cannot take responsibility for the boundaries that were drawn up at that time, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. I am given to understand that this was very carefully considered at the time and the conclusion was reached that this should await the general review of the administrative boundaries which the Boundary Commission will make between 1985 and 1990.

Hospital Waiting Lists

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many persons were awaiting admission to geriatric and psychogeriatric hospitals at the most recent date for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Harry Ewing: The figures at 31st March of this year were 1,616 and 397 respectively. The geriatric waiting list includes an unknown number of psycho-geriatric patients; and such patients may also be included in separate psychiatric waiting lists.
The major building programme provides for some 1,500 additional long-stay beds, of which about 1,100 will be for geriatric and psychogeriatric patients. In addition, health boards finance from their ordinary capital allocations smaller schemes to provide new and replacement accommodation. In the Greater Glasgow and Lothian areas, additional beds are being provided quickly in system-built units of 30 beds each, of which there will be 11 in Glasgow and four in Edinburgh.

Mr. Taylor: Does the Minister agree that there is a serious problem in regard to the waiting lists? Does he agree also that they may not tell the whole story because some people who feel that there is little chance of getting into hospital soon do not go on the normal admission lists? The medical profession takes the view that this is a desperately serious problem. Does the Minister think that it will get any better in the near future, bearing in mind the increase in the ageing population? Does he think that there is a case for a study into the nature and extent of this serious problem?

Mr. Ewing: I agree that this is a serious problem, so much so that my right hon. Friend met the Greater Glasgow Health Board within the last few weeks. We are anxious to do everything possible to solve this problem. Our discussion document "The Way Ahead ", which was designed to switch resources from the short-stay acute situation to the long-stay situation, has had an effect, and these additional replacement beds that we are providing will make the position better in the months ahead. We do not take this problem lightly. We take it very seriously indeed.

Mr. Thompson: Does the Minister recollect that the White Paper "Prevention and Health" promised a White Paper in 1979 on the elderly? Can he tell us whether it will be published soon after the new year, before the referendum or before the General Election?

Mr. Ewing: All I can say is that it will be published in 1979.

Mr. Carmichael: Does my hon. Friend accept that it is good news that we shall have 11 units with 30 places in Glasgow, because of the great demand? Can he give any idea of the time scale in which these beds can be expected to be made available?

Mr. Ewing: I shall write to my hon. Friend and give him the details.

A92 (South Angus)

Mr. Welsh: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will further delay Government plans to de-trunk the A92 coastal route to Aberdeen through South Angus until such time as a Forfar bypass is completed and in operation.

Mr. McElhone: No. It has already been decided that responsibility for expenditure on two trunk roads in this area cannot be accepted after 31st March 1979.

Mr. Welsh: I am disappointed at the Government's refusal to retain trunk status for the A92, but will the Minister look again at the problems which will be created for Forfar until the necessary bypass is completed? Will he see what steps he can take to bring improvements to the Dundee-Arbroath road, bearing in mind the special needs in the villages of Muirdrum and Marywell?

Mr. McElhone: I cannot comment on that, but I shall discuss it with the hon. Gentleman and refer to my right hon. Friend who takes care of this within the Scottish Office.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that it is grossly unfair on local authorities for a road to be de-trunked before its replacement is in a proper condition to receive the traffic? Will he, therefore, reconsider this matter, not only in this case but as a general matter of policy?

Mr. McElhone: The hon. Gentleman must be fair to the SDD. The coastal route which we are leaving as a de-trunked road is of a high standard, and the road that we are accepting—the inner route—needs a lot of attention. I accept that, and money is being spent as quickly as possible.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe that the coastal route is of a high standard? Has he ever driven through Montrose? Is he not aware of the desperate need for a relief road from Montrose, and what will he do about that?

Mr. McElhone: I know that it is election year, but we should get things into their proper perspective. In all seriousness, my noble Friend who has day-to-day responsibility for these matters and the officials to whom I have spoken within SDD have assured me that the standard of the coastal route is very high indeed.

Royal High School, Edinburgh

Mr. Knox: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made in converting the Royal high school

in Edinburgh for the proposed Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Satisfactory progress has been made and all the work should be complete by next summer.

Mr. Knox: Does that mean that it will be completed by the time the Assembly elections take place?

Mr. Ewing: It will be completed before the Assembly elections take place.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Minister aware that people in Scotland are seriously asking what will happen to that building in the event of a "No" vote? Will he tell the House what contingency plans the Government have in mind?

Mr. Ewing: I have never noticed the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher) making any serious contribution to this debate. As I have already explained, the hypothetical situation presumably now does not arise. If the Tories in Scotland are in favour of devolution, it has to be presumed that even their system will require a building in which to work.

Mr. Watt: When does the Minister expect to be able to tell the House the dates of the Assembly elections? Can he now say when we can expect to be in the Assembly?

Mr. Ewing: I can hazard a guess as to when the hon. Gentleman can expect to be out of Parliament, but not when he can expect to be in the Assembly. I certainly could not anticipate the date of the elections.

Mr. Fairbairn: What will happen to the unseen rather than the obscene in connection with the Assembly? What plans exist to move all the present bureaucrats out of old St. Andrew's House into New St. Andrew's House, all those in New St. Andrew's House out of New St. Andrew's House into another building, and what is the estimated cost?

Mr. Ewing: I saw the letter on which that question was based. Far from no one knowing anything about what has been happening, these matters have been widely discussed. We shall make the fullest use of old St. Andrew's House,


New St. Andrew's House and any additional accommodation that we might have to ask permission to purchase.

CARAVAN SITE LICENCES

Mr. George Robertson: asked the Lord Advocate what is his policy with regard to prosecutions for breaches of conditions of site licences issued by local authorities under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): Each case is considered on its merits having regard to all the circumstances.

Mr. Robertson: So that local authorities can interpret that answer, is it possible for the Lord Advocate to say what factors are taken into account in his decision to prosecute? Will he circulate the list of factors to all local authorities concerned?

The Lord Advocate: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's point, but if one is to consider each case on its merits one cannot start categorising circumstances. I can say, however, that one of the factors taken into account in deciding whether it is in the public interest to prosecute is the availability of sites for caravan users, including travelling people, who are completely dependent on such sites for their homes. The Birsay report dealt authoritatively with that matter. Other factors, of course, are matters such as public safety and the materiality of any breach of licence conditions.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the problem is not only the operation of this Act but the actual provision of sites? How do his Department and his colleagues at the Scottish Office intend to ensure that local authorities fulfil their obligation in this regard, with special reference to Scotland's travelling folk?

The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend will recall that I referred to the Birsay report, which dealt authoritatively with the matter. I agree that provision of these sites is crucial. It is not, however, my ministerial responsibility. The Secretary of State for Scotland, who is present, will have heard what my hon. Friend said.

SHERIFF COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Lord Advocate if he is satisfied with the provision of sheriff court facilities and staff in relation to the needs of the Procurator Fiscal service.

The Lord Advocate: Sheriff court accommodation for the Procurator Fiscal service is in many cases overcrowded. Alternative premises are being obtained or sought. Staffing of the Procurator Fiscal service is currently almost up to establishment.

Mr. Wilson: Will the Lord Advocate consult the 1977 digest of criminal statistics for Scotland? If he does, he will see that there were substantial delays in prosecutions, particularly those relating to indictable offences. Will he say when those resources, which have been promised for years, will be made available for the sheriff court buildings?

The Lord Advocate: I am in a dilemma, because the hon. Gentleman put down a Question relating to sheriff court facilities. In order to answer his supplementary question, one has to look at the whole spectrum of criminal statistics for the High Court and all other courts, district courts as well as sheriff courts. He implied that money had not been spent and that activity had not taken place. I refute that entirely. There has been considerable expansion during the current year of provisions in all respects to cope with the blacklog of criminal cases.

Mr. Dewar: There is a provision in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill that if an indictment case is not brought to court within 12 months of the first appearance on petition the matter shall fall. Does the Lord Advocate think that the present staffing of the Procurator Fiscal service will allow that to be implemented?

The Lord Advocate: I am making due allowance for the fact that this will create problems for us. I hope that by bringing the current establishment up to full strength it will be possible to manage with very little increase in staff.

Mr. Fairbairn: Would it not have been wise, in view of these pressures, to have enacted in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill, or still to do so, the recommendation in the Thomson report that the sheriff


court should have an increased jurisdiction to sentence for three years and that there should be no remit for sentence so that cases which should never go there in the first place are thereafter remitted to a forum which has not heard them? If he is short of space, would not the Lord Advocate have done better by knocking down the left wing of a listed building in Dundee?

The Lord Advocate: I shall not make any comment on the last part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's question. In regard to the first part, it is fair to say that there are many recommendations in the Thomson report which have to be considered along with other priorities. As he knows, the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill hopes to strike a reasonable balance between the various provisions to produce a package that will bring immediate results in the short term. I take note of the point that he makes, with which I have some sympathy.

PROCURATOR FISCAL, OBAN

Mr. Iain MacCormick: asked the Lord Advocate if his Department has reached agreement with the Procurator Fiscal in Oban regarding a revision of the latter's conditions of service.

The Lord Advocate: The salary of the part-time Procurator Fiscal at Oban was raised with effect from 1st April 1978. The secretarial allowance has more recently been updated. No other changes have been made.

Mr. MacCormick: In view of the current nature of the position of the Procurator Fiscal in Oban, does not the Lord Advocate think that his Department was rigid in the way that it carried out negotiations with him? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard the arrangements that have been made as satisfactory?

The Lord Advocate: The House of Commons is not the place to negotiate salaries. In a period of pay restraint it must be the exception rather than the rule to find anyone who is not in the position of accepting increases while wishing that a greater increase had been made. I dare say that some hon. Members of this House feel that way.

WARRANT SALES (LAW COMMISSION REPORT)

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate whether he will arrange to meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss the delay in the report of its committee on warrant sales.

The Lord Advocate: I have no immediate plans to meet the Scottish Law Commission to discuss warrant sales. The Scottish Law Commission is proceeding as expeditiously as possible with the research to which I referred in an answer which I gave to my hon. Friend on 15th February 1978.

Mr. Canavan: What does "expeditiously" mean, in view of the fact that the Law Commission working party was set up eight yeas ago? Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that there is a vested interest in delay on the part of some members of the working party, such as John Gray, for example, the brother of the notorious sheriff officer, Thomas Gray? Instead of waiting for a report which may never come, will the Government take immediate steps to introduce legislation to ban this barbaric practice, which is banned in every other part of the United Kingdom?

The Lord Advocate: I do not accept that my hon. Friend's comments are in any way justified. "Expeditiously" means quickly. The Scottish Law Commission's examination of the law of diligence has certainly not been quick. It has taken some time, but my hon. Friend must bear in mind that the Law Commission has had many immediate priorities that have had to be met in the past. A request for Government assistance in carrying out necessary social research was met immediately by the Government. This work began in November 1977. It is hoped that it will be completed before the end of 1979. The Law Commission will then consider the merits with a view to making recommendations as a result of the reports that it has received on these social inquiries. I repeat what I have said before in the House. If any specific evil which might readily be cured, is drawn to my attention, I shall look sympathetically at proposals for reform.

Mr. Dempsey: Will my right hon. and learned Friend at least freeze the use of


this system of debt collection until the Law Commission reports, in view of the humiliation which it causes to consumers in this country?

The Lord Advocate: I can only repeat what I have said already. I shall look specifically at any particular evil that is drawn to my attention.

CRIMINAL CHARGES (PROCEDURE)

Mr. Rifkind: 39. Mr. Rifkind asked the Lord Advocate whether he is satisfied that when the Crown office is considering the bringing of serious criminal charges against members of the public full opportunity is given to a potential accused, subject to the rules of criminal procedure, to acquaint the prosecuting authorities with his or her explanation of the relevant circumstances.

The Lord Advocate: In the normal case, where a crime has been committed, there is sufficient opportunity for persons who may be suspected of implication to give their version of events at an early stage of investigation. However, less opportunity may arise where it has not yet been established that a crime has been committed. In any event, it is the practice to charge an accused as soon as sufficient evidence against that person has been obtained. The accused can then give his or her explanation of the circumstances. A further opportunity arises when an accused person is brought before the court on petition when he or she has the right to emit a declaration.

Mr. Rifkind: In the light of the correspondence that I have had with the Lord Advocate on behalf of a constituent, will he accept that there are members of the public who find themselves suspended from employment because of the possibility of grave charges being brought but have sometimes to wait three or four months before charges are brought and during that period have no indication of the nature of the complaints made against them?

The Lord Advocate: I understand that, and the hon. Member has written to me about it. I think that a distinction has to be drawn between criminal investigation, which is my responsibility, and the role of an employer to whom a complaint is

made about the conduct of an employee —a complaint relating to conduct which may or may not be criminal.
In the specific case to which the hon. Member referred, I understand that the employee, a nurse, had complaints made against her. The complaints were drawn to the attention of her employers who called her in to see one of their officers. The officer in question asked the lady to take a week's leave because of complaints against her in regard to her conduct in the course of her work. As I understand it, the lady did not inquire about the nature of the complaints. No doubt had she done so her employers might have considered giving her a general indication of the nature of the complaints. But, quite frankly, I do not see that the discretion of the employer in this matter can possibly be a matter for the criminal investigation authorities.

TRAWLER "ACACIA WOOD " (LOSS)

Mrs. Winifred Ewing(by Private Notice): Mrs. Winifred Ewing(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement on the disappearence of the fishing vessel" Acacia Wood ".

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): The "Acacia Wood ", with a crew of nine, sailed from Peterhead at noon on Friday 1st December bound for the East Shetland fishing grounds. The vessel was expected to be back in Peterhead on Friday 8th December or Saturday 9th December.
On 3rd December, the skipper reported to the owners that the vessel was about to enter Norwegian waters. Weather conditions in the area were bad from Monday 4th December and deteriorated during the week. Conditions were most severe on Thursday 7th December, when there were force 10 gales and 50 ft. to 60 ft. seas.
At 1730 hours on Thursday 7th December, the skipper of the "Acacia Wood" was in radio contact with the skipper of the Peterhead trawler "Kestrel ". Because of bad weather, he apparently intended to run for an area on the east side of Fair Isle, where he proposed to fish, but if unsuccessful would return to Peterhead.
The alarm was raised by the skipper of the "Kestrel" at midnight on Friday 8th December, who, on returning to Peterhead, reported to Coastguard Peterhead that he was concerned for "Acacia Wood's" safety.
Coastguard Peterhead commenced search procedures immediately, instituting a broadcast via Wick Radio, and all sheltering ports en route, including Norway, were checked. Based on the last known position, an air search in Fair Isle gap commenced at first light on Saturday 9th in conditions of poor visibility, which persisted throughout. The weather at this time was south-easterly force 9, and vessels in the area were hove to and unable to search. Nothing having been found, the air search was called off for the day at 1700 hours, but broadcast action continued. The air search was resumed at 0800 hours on Sunday 10th December. Unhappily, this proved to be unsuccessful and at 1800 hours was finally called off, and all search and rescue action has now ceased. However, aircraft, ships and helicopters operating in the North Sea have been requested to continue a lookout.
I can tell the House that a life raft from the "Acacia Wood" has been washed ashore in the North Shetlands, and this will be examined by my Department. Despite extensive beach searches, nothing further has been found. My Department has already commenced a preliminary inquiry into this tragic casualty under section 465 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
I am sure that the House would wish to join me in expressing deepest sympathy with the families of the crew of the "Acacia Wood".

Mrs. Ewing: I thank the Minister for his very thorough statement and assure him that it is a matter of considerable comfort to the relatives of those concerned in this disaster that it is taking up the time of this House. Is he aware that a stricken community has learned yet again the price of fish to the north-east of Scotland? I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the Coastguard services, the RAF Nimrods and all the others who have done their best in this search, which has proved fruitless.
Although the life of fishermen can never be safe, in the light of these continuing disasters to vessels operating from my part of Scotland does the Minister consider that there are any additional safety devices, such as radar beams, however costly, which might be worth considering, even if it means a degree of Government sponsorship? Is the hon. Gentleman also entirely satisfied that the weather warning in this area is always entirely sufficient?

Mr. Davis: Let me say at once that this trawler was a relatively new one. It was built in 1976. It was equipped with two radars and with Decca navigational equipment. It also had a full range of other navigational equipment.
The hon. Lady paid tribute to the Coastguard and the other rescue services, and I am grateful that she expressed the matter as she did.
As for other additional safety devices, we have a fishing industry safety group. It will be considering this situation at its next meeting in January. But it is by no means an easy matter about which to make conclusions. Various devices which have been introduced have been found to be imperfect. Regrettably, they include existing EPIRBs upon which a number of people place some reliability but which unfortunately have not reached a sufficient stage of sophistication to justify our making them a mandatory requirement.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Minister aware that I wish to associate myself with the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing) in respect of the families and friends of the two constituents of mine who were aboard the "Acacia Wood "? Can he say a little more about the fishing industry safety group? Does he recall our exchanges on 7th March of this year, unfortunately in relation to the loss of another boat, the "Enterprise ", from Fraserburgh, in my constituency? The hon. Gentleman indicated that there was a degree of urgency in following up various suggestions and proposals, among them the possibility of a separate reporting frequency. Can he be more forthcoming today, or can he say when he will be in a position to make a statement about that?

Mr. Davis: I recognise the hon. Member's important constituency interest in this matter, and I recall the occasion on


7th March to which he alluded. The fishing industry safety group has reported to us that, regrettably from my point of view, as I said on that occasion, the radio reporting that we were seeking to encourage would not be undertaken by active working fishermen. I still think that that is unfortunate. But if the industry is not prepared to co-operate, it is very difficult to try to enforce a scheme in these circumstances.
The fishing industry safety group was established in July 1977 in the wake of certain contention over the Fishing Vessels (Safety Provisions) Rules which I was seeking to impose. It represents a pretty good cross-section of the fishing industry. It meets roughly at three-monthly intervals, and it has made a very positive contribution. I am sure that it will take into account what the hon. Member has just said.

Mr. James Johnson: May I express my deepest sympathy for the families of the men lost in this disaster? Will the Minister think again about what he said about safety devices? He mentioned EPIRBs especially. Is it not a fact that Norwegian fishermen fishing in the same waters as we do—and, of course also the American Coastguard division—have a mandatory system for devices of this nature? My hon. Friend and I have been in correspondence about this for a long time. Will he think again about it?

Mr. Clinton Davis: My hon. Friend rightly said that he has raised the matter on a number of occasions. I understand and have much sympathy with the point of view that he expressed. The Government, while they have a locus, necessarily have to consult the industry to ascertain whether any such requirement should be made mandatory and whether it would be capable of reasonable enforcement. I am advised that at present the EPIRBs, about which my hon. Friend is specifically concerned, have a limited performance. In this instance it is conjectural

whether there could have been a launching or whether the signal could have been picked up by aircraft or nearby vessels.
It is true that Norway has introduced mandatory requirements. That is because the authorities have the support of the industry in any event. However, coastal and terrain conditions are very different and they do not apply to anything like the same extent in this country. We are working through IMCO, through the fishing industry safety group and through the Government laboratories and others to ascertain whether these devices may be made more nearly perfect. If they could be made more nearly perfect, we would at that stage contemplate making them mandatory. It would be premature to do so now.

Mr. McNamara: The House will be surprised by my hon. Friend's reply concerning the use of the emergency radio frequency and the industry's not being prepared to co-operate. Is it not my hon. Friend's Department that licenses fishing boats? Is there not a Bill now passing through the House that could make the use of the frequency mandatory and, if necessary, force these measures upon recalcitrant fishermen?

Mr. Clinton Davis: I suppose that it is possible for the matter to be raised when we consider the Merchant Shipping Bill in Committee. It is not a provision within the Bill as it stands. It would be extremely difficult to impose such recommendations in view of the fact that we have been advised by the industry that nobody would obey them. It would be unrealistic to implement the idea in those circumstances.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: On behalf of the Opposition, I thank the Minister for his statement. I pay tribute to those who took part in the search. The Opposition associate themselves totally with the sympathy that has been expressed for the families of those missing from the "Acacia Wood ".

CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967 (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) to move his Ten-Minute Bill, I must remind the House that the motion for leave is expressed in general terms. Under the sub judice resolution of tie House, no mention may be made of any criminal proceedings currently under way. The Member who proposes the motion and any Member who may oppose it must confine their remarks to that general proposition.

3.43 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1967 by restricting the reporting of criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts; and for connected purposes.

I declare an interest, as a Queen's counsel. The scope of my Bill is simple and I wish the House to understand what it is. It is not an assault upon the procedure for committal proceedings in England. What views I have on that matter I can discuss on another occasion. This is an attempt to prevent the reporting of committal proceedings in England and Wales before a person has either been committed or not committed or, if he is committed, before he is either convicted or acquitted by a court in this country.

If I may, Mr. Speaker, it will be proper for me to quote the recommendations of the Tucker committee of 1958, when this matter was reviewed in England. It was probably because of a comparison with the Scottish system that the wrong that could arise from the reporting of committal proceedings was there discussed. The Tucker committee made the following recommendation:

"We recommend that unless the accused has been discharegd or until the trial has ended, any report of committal proceedings should be restricted to particulars of the name of the accused, the charge, the decision of the court and the like."

The recommendation continued with these important words:

"No lesser reform would be both adequate and practicable, and this recommendation both removes the defects and preserves the merits of the existing system. It also removes the unfairness that is seen in only the prosecution

case being before the public during the weeks before the trial and in the possibility of what tells against the accused being in sum reported twice and what is in his favour only once."

Lord Hailsham, as a former Lord Chancellor, has always held the view that that recommendation was right, and he has recently expressed that view. I think that all people in this country—the Scots for different reasons, because they have a different system—are dismayed by the wrongful effects that can arise from reporting in magistrates' hearings. I believe that a basic instinct of propriety and fairness in the breasts of hon. Members on both sides of the House leads hon. Members to consider that procedure wrong. It is the benefit of a comparative system of law that each of us may learn from the other. However, central to both systems is the presumption of innocence of any person accused, and anything that disturbs the presumption of innocence before a jury hears the evidence from the mouths of the witnesses is wrong.

We have in Scotland a much stricter standard of protection. Such photographs as appeared in the press of an incident two days ago would be a gross contempt of court in Scotland, because identification in any case may well be an issue. In Scotland, the courts have frequently fined newspapers and journalists—and recently a television company in England was fined about £61,000—for interfering with the course of justice by publishing before trial reference to or picture of the person accused.

It is essential that a jury should be impartial, on the presumption that the accused is innocent until proved guilty. If there is widespread publication of a case in which there is widespread interest, no family in the land, given a bowdlerised or cauterised edition of the evidence, or part of the evidence, on television or in a newspaper, will not come to a wrong, false, squinted or other impression. It is a fallacious fiction of the law that a judge may say "Put out of your mind anything that you may have read." It is not possible to put out of one's mind an impression that has been formed.

There arises the important issue of the freedom of the press. The freedom of the press is protected not as an absolute right but as a guarantee of the protection of other freedoms. It has no purpose as a freedom on its own, except for the


benefit of those who write for it. In order to protect the public interest, obviously the press will seek, rightly, to publish what will be of interest to those who wish to read their newspapers. It is, in a sense, an amoral freedom in the absence of those it seeks to protect. The principle that it seeks to protect is the protection of the presumption of innocence of anybody who is accused of a crime by the State.

It is no good talking of an open society in vacuum terms. It is not a society open to abuse, open to prurience, or a miscarriage of justice; it is a freedom only if that freedom is to protect greater freedoms of those who are weaker before the assault or charge of the State.

There is no question of secrecy. If my Bill is passed any Member of the House, or any member of the press or of the public, could attend committal proceedings and any member of the press could report anything that was done or said at those proceedings after the verdict on the accused had been reached, at whatever stage it was reached.

It is said by some that the accused has a right to publicise what happens at the committal proceedings. Why should he not do so? If he is innocent he may wish to show that he is innocent. That is an argument for saying that in order to show that there is no fire one should broadcast the smoke.

It seems to me that an accused person who is guilty, and knows that he is guilty, may use that procedure in order to give the impression to the magistrates that he has nothing to hide. Furthermore, the present arrangements are subject to dangerous corruption.

If a number of accused persons are in the dock, pressure can be put upon one of them who has little to lose if convicted but much to lose if he has to pay the costs of defence. Pressure can be put upon him corruptly to lift reporting proceedings. The other accused can do nothing about that.

Secondly, an accused person might ask for the reporting restrictions to be lifted out of spite. He might be in the dock only to prevent the big fish from blaming him.

Thirdly—and this is most important—no man, for whatever motive, should be entitled to let the jury see in advance a bowdlerised form of the evidence because he thinks that it is in his interests to do so.

I believe that the present system is open to gross corruption. I believe that it does great wrong. We should follow the recommendation of the Tucker committee, which, for some reason, the Criminal Justice Act did not follow.

I have taken two oaths—one to justice, as a barrister, and one to this House. It is important that we should understand, from whatever part of the Kingdom we come, that we have a duty to justice and to liberty. I therefore urge all hon. Members to support the Bill.

3.53 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: This is an extremely inappropriate time to legislate upon this subject. I cannot refer to the reasons why I think that, but every hon. Member will be aware of them. The matter may be newsworthy at present, but there is an old adage that hard cases make bad law, and this would be a bad time to legislate on this subject.
The primary consideration should be the interests of the defence in any criminal trial. I bow to the immense knowledge of the Scottish criminal law which is possessed by the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), but I understand that in Scotland the accused is not given the whole of the evidence before the trial takes place. The object of committal proceedings in England is to ensure that the defence has all the prosecution evidence. That is the primary object, which I understand not to be the case in Scotland. In the past that procedure took place in public. We changed the law so that the defence alone could decide whether that proceeding was in public or in private.
When there is only one defendant there is no problem. The defence and the defence alone has the right to decide what the hon. and learned Member is trying to put into his Bill. One problem has been revealed. It is not unusual in criminal cases for the interests of the several defendants to conflict. The present law provides that one defendant may


decide to open the case to the public, even if the other defendants do not wish to do so.
There is no possible way of totally reconciling defendants when they disagree about what should be done, but the present law that defendants alone may decide whether the prosecution evidence is made public is right, certainly where there is a single defendant. In a democracy,

Division No. 23]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Ashley, Jack
Goodlad, Alastair
Ogden, Eric


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Gould, Bryan
Onslow, Cranley


Banks, Robert
Gourlay, Harry
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Beith, A. J.
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Berry, Hon Anthony
Graham, Ted
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gray, Hamish
Park, George


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grocott, Bruce
Parkinson, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Penhaligon, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Hannam, John
Perry, Ernest


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Bradley, Tom
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Brotherton, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hawkins, Paul
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Buchanan, Richard
Hayhoe, Barney
Raison, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Budgen, Nick
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rifkind, Malcolm


Burden, F. A.
Heffer, Eric S.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Campbell, Ian
Holland, Philip
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Canavan, Dennis
Home Robertson, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Carmichael, Neil
Hooson, Emlyn
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Churchill, W. S.
Hordern, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Coleman, Donald
Hunter, Adam
Roper, John


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cope, John
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Costain, A. P.
James, David
Sandelson, Neville


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Kershaw, Anthony
Shersby, Michael


Crawford, Douglas
Kilfedder, James
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Crawshaw, Richard
Knight, Mrs Jill
Silverman, Julius


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Knox, David
Sinclair, Sir Georgo


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Lamborn, Harry
Skeet, T. H. H.


L'empsey, James
Lawson, Nigel
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Dewar, Donald
Le Marchant, Spencer
Snape, Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Litterick, Tom
Stainton, Keith


Drayson, Burnaby
Lloyd, Ian
Stallard, A. W.


Durant, Tony
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steel, Rt Hon David


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Loyden, Eddie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Evans Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
MacCormick, lain
Tierney, Sydney


Evans, John (Newton)
Macfarlane, Nell
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Fairgrieve, Russell
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Wakeham, John


Faulds, Andrew
MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McNamara, Kevin
Watkins, David


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Watkinson, John


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Mates, Michael
Weitzman, David


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
White, James (Pollok)


Ford, Ben
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Whitney, Raymond


Forman, Nigel
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Forrester, John
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Monro, Hector
Winterton, Nicholas


Freud, Clement
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Morton, George
Younger, Hon George


George, Bruce
Mudd, David



Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ginsburg, David
Newens, Stanley
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn and


Glyn, Dr Alan
Newton, Tony
Mr. Patrick Cormack.


Goodhew, Victor






NOES


Ashton, Joe
Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Bates, Alf


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)

surely we should err on the side of opening matters to the public if the defendants disagree.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nominations of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 63.

Bidwell, Sydney
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Biffen, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rooker, J. W.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Kerr, Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Cant, R. B.
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Carlisle, Mark
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Spriggs, Leslie


Cartwright, John
Madden, Max
Stanbrook, Ivor


Cohen, Stanley
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Swain, Thomas


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cowans, Harry
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Tilley, John


Cryer, Bob
Molyneaux, James
Urwin, T. W.


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Noble, Mike
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Dunlop, John
Oakes, Gordon
Whitehead, Phillip


Dykes, Hugh
Orbach, Maurice
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Edge, Geoff
Palmer, Arthur
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Parker, John



Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Michael English and


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Mr. George Gardiner.


Hardy, Peter




Question accordingly agreed to.


Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn, Mr. Patrick Cormack, Mr. William Craig, Mr. Tony Durant, Mr. Gwynfor Evans, Mr. Hugh Fraser, Mr. Emlyn Hooson, Mr. Graham Page, Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies, Mr. John Ryman and Mrs. Renée Short.


CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT 1967(AMENDMENT)


Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Criminal Justice Act 1967 by restricting the reporting of criminal proceedings in magistrates' courts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 19th January and to be printed [Bill 46.]

COUNTER-INFLATION POLICY

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business for the day. I should inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Ron Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the fact that there is on the Order Paper an amendment that has been signed by 30 Labour Back-Bench Members and that would have been signed by more had the opportunity presented itself to them? May I put it to you that your predecessor on a previous occasion called two amendments because he felt that the subject under discussion was of a serious nature? May I suggest that today's debate is on an equally serious matter?
Members of the Parliamentary Labour Party have repeatedly tabled amendments of this sort, commanding anything up to 50, 60 or 70 signatures. On the occasion when your predecessor created a precedent, he selected an amendment that had been signed by only about one-sixth of that number. May I urge you and appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to consider calling the amendment that stands in the names of myself and certain of my hon. Friends?

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We can quickly settle this matter. When my predecessor selected a second amendment, the rules applying to him were not as they apply to me. A different motion was on the Order Paper. The House expects me to see that the rules are observed. The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) and his hon. Friends are not alone in having an amendment on the Order Paper. The Scottish National Party, the Liberal Party and Government supporters also have tabled amendments. My selection has been announced and it must stand. I am not going to take long points of order about my selection. That would be quite exceptional and I do not propose to allow it. I am willing to take one.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little confused about the situation and I shall be grateful for your guidance. If I may refresh your memory, on 29th April 1976

there was a motion on the Order Paper, presumably in the name of the Leader of the House, to which an amendment signed by only two hon. Members was tabled. It was duly moved and subsequently debated and voted on. What causes me concern is that the rules regarding amendments do not seem to be clear. On the one hand we have 50, 60, 70 or even 100 Members tabling an amendment that is not called and yet on another occasion —as recently as April 1976—only two Members of the Opposition tabling an amendment that was called and debated. That seems to suggest an inconsistency.
I wonder whether you could clarify the position so that Back Benchers can have an opportunity of expressing an opinion that is not entirely in accord with the Government motion and that is certainly opposed to the hypocritical motion of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker: The position is quite clear. The rules of the House enable me to call one amendment only—the one that can be voted upon at the end of the evening. The House has given me this instruction and until the rule is changed we must abide by it.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not propose to take any more points of order about my selection of amendments.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Is it on an entirely different subject?

Mr. McNamara: Yes, otherwise I would not seek to raise it, bearing in mind what you have just said, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Of course not.

Mr. McNamara: As you have decided, Mr. Speaker, not to call my amendment to the amendment, for reasons that I understand, though which I did not think were covered by the Standing Order, could you say whether you have had intimated to you that in the event of the right hon. Lady's amendment being defeated it is the Government's intention to move their substantive motion?

Mr. Speaker: No. I have not had such notice.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Is it on the selection?

Mrs. Wise: It is a point of order on general procedure.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady will resume her seat. She knows very well that I have said that the selection cannot be challenged. I have given my ruling to the House and I am not—

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better than to rise whilst I am addressing the House.

Mr. Heifer: So do you.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Gentleman. I must tell the hon. Lady that the House has important business before it. I have made my selection and it stands. I am not taking points of order about the selection. I will take a point of order about anything else, but not about selection of the amendment.

Mrs. Wise: I am not seeking to challenge your selection or to question it in any way, Mr. Speaker. I am asking for your guidance on a statement by the Leader of the House yesterday in response to a question of mine, in which he said that if more than one of the motions on the Order Paper were called for debate a Government motion would have to be tabled to make that possible. The guidance that I seek, Mr. Speaker, is whether there is any way in which Back Benchers can activate or encourage any practice that will make it possible for you to have the freedom to select in such a way as to allow not simply Back Benchers on the Government side of the House—it might be that I am in disagreement with some of my hon. Friends on this point—but minority parties to express a clear point of view if they wish.
My question relates to this very point. If I am told that it is possible for a procedural motion to be tabled, it does not seem adequate that there is no way in which we can call the Government to account in the exercise of their prerogative on this point.
I believe that it is important for the respect in which this House is held that

it can be seen that Members can vote in a way that reflects their point of view, whether as Back Benchers or Members from the minority parties, who are elected to reflect legitimate strands of opinion. I am puzzled, Mr. Speaker, and I have been waiting for a considerable time for guidance on the way in which we can make it possible for this to be done.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady's question was dealt with in a report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which has yet to be discussed by the House.

Mrs. Wise: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Point of order, Mr. Frank Allaun.

Mr. Frank Allaun: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to inform you that I was told yesterday that the correct person to approach on this matter was the Clerk to the Journal Office. I did that and have it in writing that if at 3.30 p.m. the Government move a motion on the Ten o'clock rule, it is possible for you to take alternative amendments. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, whether you are to blame or not, it is possible.

Mr. Speaker: In fairness to all hon. Members, such a motion must be on the Order Paper. There are five amendments on the Order Paper and I have looked at them all. I have selected the one in the name of the official Opposition.

Mrs. Wise: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have referred to a particular report which apparently deals with this point, may I ask whether there is any action that Back Benchers can take to ensure that that report is debated?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady has the normal channels open to her to pursue that matter elsewhere. There is no point in pursuing it at the moment.

4.19 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mr. Roy Hatters-ley): I beg to move,

That this House welcomes the achievement of the Government and the country in reducing the rate of inflation and supports the Government's objective of bringing it down further as a means of reducing unemployment, increasing industrial activity and improving real living standards.

Today's debate has two distinct but related causes. The first is the Opposition's wish to debate one narrow aspect of counter-inflation policy; the second is the Government's willing acceptance of the opportunity to reaffirm the absolute priority that we give to the policy as a whole. Our immediate intention is to hold the inflation rate at or about its present level. Our eventual aim is to reduce the figure to the level enjoyed by our most successful competitors, for unless we achieve our objectives none of our other policies—economic growth, lower unemployment, higher investment and improved services financed by public expenditure—can fully succeed.

The control of inflation is essential for both social and economic progress and no one should doubt our determination, despite the difficulties that clearly lie ahead, to build on the success of the past three years and to keep inflation firmly under control.

The people of this country, if not the Opposition, realise how great that achievement has been. Three years ago the annual rate of increase in the retail price index stood at more than 26 per cent. Today it is less than 8 per cent. I know that the Opposition affect the belief that our inflation began at the moment the poll closed on 28th February 1974, but the facts prove something rather different.

Mr. F. A. Burden: What about the Chancellor of the Exchequer's claim that inflation was at 8·4 per cent?

Mr. Hattersley: The new Government were faced with a fourfold increase in the price of imported oil. That burden was clearly not the responsibility of the previous Government, but the rest of the legacy and the other liabilities that we inherited were their responsibility and theirs alone. The money supply was out of control and growing at an average rate of 6 per cent. each quarter throughout 1972 and 1973. Nationalised industries had been encouraged—indeed, on some occasions required—to run massive deficits until the moment arrived when the postponement of their proper financing could be put off no longer. Threshold agreements — inflation institutionalised and built into collective agreements—were anticipated in industry after industry.
All those factors—known to and, indeed, caused by our predecessors—made 1974 a year of inevitable and massive inflation increase. The outgoing Government must have known what was about to happen. It is inconceivable that the economic forecasts that they received during their dying months of office could have included anything other than the explicit warning of a price explosion that was bound to occur and was about to occur.
The record of inflation in this country over the past four and a half years can be described in two simple sentences. They caused it. We cured it. We cured it largely by adopting a policy that the Opposition specifically rejected, namely, a partnership with the trade union movement. When I talk of our achievements, as I propose to do, I refer to the achievements of the Government and the people of this country working in close co-operation. We propose to maintain that co-operation.
On Wednesday, the economic committee of the TUC will meet my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretaries of State for Industry and Employment and myself to discuss the nature and extent of co-operation during the rest of the current pay round. The support of the trade unions, which sustained us during the first three phases of incomes policy, must be maintained.
During phases 1 and 2 of our policy, we received the firm, formal endorsement of the TUC. During phase 3, the policy enjoyed the support of trade union membership throughout the country. Without the co-operation that our policy achieved, success would not have been possible, and I gladly accept and acknowledge the debt that we owe to those men and women who made the central contribution to our recovery.
However, although the contribution of wages policy was central, we must not fall into the error of talking or acting as though it were the only ingredient of our counter-inflation policy. It is not wage increases alone that make prices rise. We shall not cure inflation by policies that bear only on wages.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: That is what we are doing.

Mr. Hattersley: The Government have never acted in that way. Since the containment of inflation is our first priority, all our policies have been geared to that principal obligation. We have rejected the arguments in favour of a continual managed depreciation in the exchange rate because we believe that low import prices are in the interests of the overall performance of British industry. We have kept the money supply and the public sector borrowing requirement under prudent control. The nationalised industries, having contributed to that end by eliminating the deficits the Tory Government forced upon them, now offer a period of relative price stability. Attempts to increase indirect taxation as a way of financing cuts in direct taxes have been resisted because of their price effects.
In Brussels, we have fought to ensure that increases in CAP prices were kept to a minimum. Last year's annual price review produced the smallest increases in prices—2¼ per cent. overall—that the Community has ever known and we shall continue to press for a radical revision of the CAP and for an end to the indefensible practice of increasing the prices of commodities already in surplus.
We have received precious little support for our policies from the Opposition. Of course they repeat the same dreary platitude that appears in their amendment. They want a lower inflation rate, but when it comes to the policies that turn that pious hope into reality they flinch away. They are in favour of strict control of the PSBR, but they demand extra spending, notably on defence and law and order. They believe in responsible collective bargaining and think that the figure of 5 per cent. is "about right ", but they would have paid the Armed Forces 32 per cent. from April and the police 40 per cent. from September.
The Opposition talk about the rising cost of food, although this year's increase in the food index has been the lowest since 1970, but they voted to devalue the green pound, to the clear disadvantage of the consumer. They fought, literally night and day, to prevent the creation of the new Price Commission, with its specific powers of investigation and price freeze.
I know that the Price Commission is the bête noire of the Tory Party and its friends in the national newspapers. I

have almost given up hope of its work and role being discussed by them in anything approaching rational language. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim), who leads for the Opposition in these matters, described the Commission as establishing
 what amounts to a reign of terror ".
I see her nodding in continued agreement. She said:
 the mere threat of a Price Commission inquisition is enough to send a shiver down the spine of most companies ".
I suspect that some of my hon. Friends wish that her description approximated to the truth. I certainly believe that if changes are needed in the powers of the Commission they are changes designed to strengthen, rather than to reduce, its effectiveness. But what is clear—irrespective of different views on the safeguard clauses, which certainly limit its work—is the specific and substantial contribution the Price Commission has made to our policy.
The Price Commission prevents unnecessary and unreasonable price increases. Very often, it discharges that duty by acting as an agent of improved competition, obliging companies that dominate their markets to charge prices no greater than the prices that they would be able to charge if they were subject to the fierce forces of free competition. A Conservative Party that preserved its traditional support for competition would applaud such a policy. In fact, its recent relationship with the Price Commission shows that the present Tory Party will support any dominant company which manages to keep its prices artificially high.
If I am thought to be less than generous in my description of the Opposition's attitude, I ask them to quote to me a single instance when they have supported a Price Commission recommendation that resulted in holding down the prices of tea, soda ash, dry batteries, coffee, television rentals, beer or plasterboard. I could go on with a long list of occasions on which the Commission has acted on behalf of the consumer and the Conservative Party has criticised it for doing so.
Let me pursue one specific example. A year ago the Price Commission described the four major tea blenders in this


country as operating in a way that was "excessively gentlemanly ". In fact, what it meant was that they were operating a parallel pricing policy. When raw tea prices rose, retail prices went up. When raw tea prices fell, the retail price remained unchanged. Thanks to the investigation by the Price Commission and the immediate response of the Co-operative Wholesale Society, the ring was broken. For many months there were competitive reductions in the price of tea. A year ago medium-quality tea cost about 29p a quarter. The most recent survey puts the average price at under 23p a quarter.
What we should be told is whether the Opposition are glad or sorry that that sort of power and policy now exist. When they voted for 36 continuous hours in their unsuccessful attempt to emasculate the Price Commission, was this what they were anxious to avoid—lower prices and lower profits?
What the Price Commission does seems to me to be right on its merits, but it is also necessary for a practical reason, which the Opposition have been unwilling or unable to understand. If we are to obtain the co-operation of working people and their families in the continuation of counter-inflation policy, we have honestly to convince them that we are doing all that we reasonably can—all that is possible without jeopardising investment and employment—to prevent unnecessary price increases. I repeat that the co-operation of working people is vital. Wages policy is not the only ingredient of our counter-inflation strategy, but it is an essential element.

Mr. Skinner: Sanctions are a messy business.

Mr. Hattersley: There is ample proof of what I have just said in the record of our success during 1976. It was during that year that the corner was turned, the year in which the trade union movement —leadership and membership—accepted that earnings increases would fall below the expected rise in the inflation rate. That was a year of real sacrifice. Without it, I do not believe that the increasing prosperity of 1978 and 1979 would have been possible.
But we must not conclude from that phase of policy that every year of incomes policy is intended to have, or is, indeed,

likely to have, the same result. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Incomes policy is now intended—through the effect it has upon inflation—to improve real living standards.
Incomes policy is not about continued sacrifice; it is about increased prosperity.

Mr. Nick Budgen: And firmness and fairness.

Mr. Hattersley: Increased prosperity was a result that we achieved last year. Last year we said that earnings increases amounting to about 10 per cent. would produce an inflation rate substantially below that figure and that, as a result, in real terms we would all be better off. Certainly, even allowing for self-financing productivity deals, the earnings out-turn was slightly larger than we hoped. But it was near enough to our target to ensure that inflation was kept well within control. Total earnings rose by little more than 14 per cent. The retail price index increased by little more than half that figure. As a result, we are all better off. Indeed, as a nation we saw our living standards rise last year by over 7 per cent.
Had there been no incomes policy it is possible, indeed probable, that many millions of pay slips would have contained figures much larger than the ones that actually appeared last year. But what is printed on pay slips his less important than what the money in the pay packet will actually buy. Without an incomes policy the real value of most people's wages would have been eroded by inflation almost before the pay packets were in their hands. We need to concentrate on real wages. Real wages grow fastest when inflation is kept under control.
To keep inflation under control this year at least we have to plan incomes in the way in which we on the Government Benches believe other parts of the economy should be planned. It was in pursuit of that aim that July's White Paper "Winning the Battle Against Inflation" was published. Within it was included the settlement figure of 5 per cent. I know that there are many different views on both the propriety and the practicability of 5 per cent., but the arithmetic is beyond dispute. Settlements at or about 5 per cent. will produce an overall earnings increase of about 7 per


cent. or 8 per cent. Earnings increases of that order will allow us to hold the annual inflation rate at about the same figure. As a result, our overall standard of living will be maintained.
If, on the other hand, earnings were to rise by 15 per cent. or 20 per cent., inflation would increase even faster. In real terms—and it is real terms that matter—we would as a nation be worse off. There is no escape from that simple formula. Nor do the Government seek or choose to evade its implications. Our first duty is to describe the policy that will best preserve the standard of living of the British people. Our second is to do all within our power to bring that policy about. It is not an obligation that we propose to run away from, either tonight at 10 o'clock or during the weeks ahead.
I believe that that obligation applies with special force in our consideration of the interests of the lowest paid. A desire to do something for the lowest paid is perhaps the strongest argument in favour of incomes policy. It was the free-for-all that made them the lowest paid. Within the system of free collective bargaining, workers with little industrial strength, employed in the least profitable industries, have little hope of enjoying a reasonable standard of living.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: In nothing that my right hon. Friend has said so far, including the criteria that he has set out backing the use of an incomes policy, has he indicated that this year is the last of any phases of an incomes policy. Will he now give an assurance that the promise made in 1976 and 1977 that there would be an orderly return to free collective bargaining—respossible bargaining—now applies to next year and that he will now advocate a return to free collective bargaining?

Mr. Hattersley: The orderly return to free collective bargaining of course remains our aspiration and remains the policy of the TUC, but I think that my hon. Friend will agree with me that even the TUC believes that the return to free collective bargaining needs to be qualified. It is because he believes that, I suspect, that he raised this point during the passage of my speech on the lowest paid.
Most people accept that free collective bargaining alone cannot meet the needs of the lowest paid. It is that sort of topic and interest that we must begin discussing with the TUC.

Mr. Skinner: On the basis of my right hon. Friend's argument that this semi-statutory, or whatever it is, kind of incomes policy is likely to benefit the low paid—we can dispute that, of course, but those are his words—can we be assured that in the public sector negotiations, particularly the Health Service and refuse workers and so on, which are coming up in December and January, reaching finality in January, the Government will acknowledge that 5 per cent. is not sufficient because most of these workers are in the low-paid category? Many of us feel that this debate about sanctions, supposedly, is really about trying to nobble the public sector workers.

Mr. Hattersley: If my hon. Friend pauses a moment, he will agree that sanctions, as he calls them, are essentially concerned with the private sector. [HON. MEMBERS: "What do you call them?"' I call them what the White Paper calls them—discretionary action.
If my hon. Friend pauses for a minute, he will agree that sanctions, as he calls them, directed against the private sector can hardly be conceived of by the Government as a way of depressing wages in the public sector. I repeat what I said about those in the public sector. The only hope of meeting their needs is from some orderly planning in wages. The White Paper that we debated in July actually includes a paragraph through which and by which special concessions can be made for the lowest paid. I believe that many members of the Government—indeed, the Government in their entirety—would not be happy to support a wages policy which did not include that proviso. My hon. Friend says that he and some of those sitting around him do not believe that a wages policy has helped or could conceivably help the lowest paid.

Mr. Skinner: It has not done.

Mr. Hattersley: Let me remind my hon. Friend of the year in which wages policy provided a £6 flat-rate increase for all workers, including the lowest paid—

Mr. Skinner: You are not doing that.

Mr. Hattersley: —and that was the year in which many lower-paid workers received a bigger increase in their salaries and a bigger improvement in their standards of living than anything they had previously enjoyed. Indeed, anyone whose sole interest is an improvement in the welfare of the lower paid should not be arguing against an incomes policy. He should be fighting tooth and nail for an incomes policy which provides special selective benefit for the lowest paid.

Mr. Ron Thomas: I am trying to follow my right hon. Friend's suggestion that incomes policies have helped the lower paid. Apart from the statistics which show that they have not, can my right hon. Friend explain how, in a capitalist system, if the unions give up a legitimate claim to higher earnings in a firm such as Ford, which made £300 million profit, that can be transferred to low-paid workers? The only way that this transfer can be achieved is by Ford workers getting as much as they can and paying 30 per cent. tax on their increased earnings, which will happen, of course.

Mr. Hattersley: I think that my hon. Friend misunderstands the position. I must tell him the position frankly. If, as I hope, we are to have a system under which the lowest paid are specially helped, planning, as we intend to do, a wage increase which is consistent with our other economic policies, there are some people and some unions, including unions such as the one of which I am a member—a union which basically represents the highest paid among industrial and engineering workers—which must make their own concessions and their own sacrifices on behalf of the people on the lowest pay, whose interests they seek to help. I have no doubt that, throughout the trade union movement, there is a substantial body of opinion which realises the social justice of that policy and wants to see it implemented.
I believe, and I shall continue to believe, that we can operate an overall wages policy which contains a measure of justice and equity. We said that only a 5 per cent. settlement policy can produce the right inflation result and we are not prepared to argue, as apparently the Opposition argue, that the strong and the

powerful should enjoy increases appreciably in excess of that figure while the poor and the weak average out other people's good fortune by receiving negligible increases.
Certainly we accept that the public sector should respect the policy, but equally we expect it to be observed within private industry. We have made perfectly plain our decision that, where private industry implements settlements in excess of the White Paper, we shall be unwilling to finance those settlements through Government expenditure.
I know that some of my hon. Friends, as well as the Opposition, are critical of the discretionary action that we have taken in support of pay policy because they believe that the Government should neither inhibit nor prevent free collective bargaining. I understand that in taking up that position they are moved, motivated, by a matter of principle.

Mr. Skinner: And party policy.

Mr. Hattersley: Let us put it this way: neither principle nor party policy can be the case with the Opposition. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) will not move the amendment in favour of a statutory incomes policy. The right hon. Lady who leads his party told the electors of Penistone, according to the report in the Financial Times of her visit there, that free collective bargaining
 would not be permitted in the nationalised industries or other areas of the public sector".
All those who are rallying round from the Opposition Benches tonight in favour of uninhibited, free collective bargaining voted with enthusiasm for the Industrial Relations Act six years ago. In fact, they simply want to inflict the maximum political damage on the Government, to score a party point.
That is proved by the nature and by the occasion of the debate that they hoped to hold last week. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), the Shadow Leader of the House, explained on radio why he had not chosen to put down a motion which robustly defined the principle for which the Opposition would fight. His answer could not have been more frank:
There is no point in putting down a vote of confidence unless you have reasonable reason to believe that it is going to be supported by the minority parties.


It is difficult to imagine a more frank statement of the triumph of tactics over principle.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: While on the subject of radio broadcasts, perhaps I could take the right hon. Gentleman back again—

Mr. Tom Litterick: You can take him anywhere you like.

Mr. Tebbit: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman and I will agree on where I can take him. I should like to take him back to the broadcast made during the October 1974 election by his right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who said:
 There is no reason to believe that there are any further price increases in the pipeline.
Does not that make absolute nonsense of all the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he blamed all price increases on the inheritance from the previous Government?

Mr. Hattersley: It is absolutely typical of the trivialities of the hon. Gentleman that he should return to that sort of point. He says that the small quotation that he has given invalidates all the assertions that I made about the performance of the previous Government. If he can tell me one of those which is wrong—indeed, if he can understand them —I shall give way to him immediately.

Mr. Tebbit: All I want to do is to help the right hon. Gentleman. Will he tell me whether he thinks that the right hon. Lady the then Secretary of State was telling the truth on that occasion, or was she telling an untruth, in the interests of being elected again in October 1974?

Mr. Hattersley: I thought that the hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I certainly do not intend to pursue the hon. Gentleman down the road that he chooses to follow. I propose to deal seriously with the matter in hand, which is the occasion and nature of this debate. If the hon. Member for Chelmsford wishes to intervene, I shall gladly give way.

Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: The right hon. Gentleman asked

the House whether we could think of a better example of the triumph of tactics over principle than my statement. Has the right hon. Gentleman considered his own career?

Mr. Hattersley: I turn now to another example of the cynicism of the Opposition. Since we last debated discretionary action in February of this year, a number of companies have chosen to give publicity to the Government's refusal to do business with them. The Ford Motor Company is not the first example of sanctions or discretionary action that has become publicly known. Brain Haulage, High Speed Turnings, Hall Foundries, V. W. Spencer Engineering, and T. Baker and Sons are all examples of occasions when this great matter of principle might have been aired on the Floor of the House of Commons, but the Opposition did not rise to their defence.
The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition did not lose her temper on behalf of a small company. It was only when the Ford Motor Company made the headlines and received the sort of publicity that has characterised the debate over the last two weeks that the issue was brought before us. It is very clear that "principle" for the Opposition lies very firmly and very squarely in newspaper headlines.
What is simultaneously pathetic and disreputable about the attitude of the Opposition is their wish to be associated with the manifestly popular and clearly successful counter-inflationary policy but their refusal ever to support the application of that policy when it involves actions which are either dangerous or difficult.
Those deplorable double standards are typified by the amendment that the Opposition propose to move today. It begins with a pious call for an improved inflation rate, pausing only to describe 7·8 per cent. as "high" without apparently recalling that when they left office the retail price index stood at 13·2 per cent. and was rising, and rising fast. The amendment then goes on to back away from the parts of the policy that are necessary if it is to be implemented successfully.
The willingness to support popular general principles but the determination to run away from their difficult application is characterised by the entire Conservative attitude to incomes policy.

Mr. Robert Adley: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hattersley: No.
We are told that the Opposition are in favour of wage settlements of about 5 per cent., but they believe that the figure ought to be an average. They tell us every week of a group of workers who deserve to receive more than the average, but they never nominate groups who must make the compensating sacrifice to keep the average intact.
The Government have taken up a more honourable position. That has sometimes obliged us to tell some workers that we do not believe that they should receive the wage increases that they claim. It also requires us to face both the practice and the principle of discretionary action. There is no doubt that discretionary action has helped in securing many wage settlements consistent with our counter-inflation policy. That was the conclusion of the Financial Times monthly survey of business opinion, which was published on 4th December. It was the judgment of the chairman of the economic committee of the British Institute of Management, broadcasting on 28th November. It is the evidence of wage settlements reported to the Government. But, as well as this practical justification, I believe that discretionary policy can be justified in principle.
There are many low-paid workers who during the year will settle in accordance with the Government's guidelines. Indeed, many have already done so. I can see no reason why they, through their taxes, should help to finance the inflationary wage increases paid to better-off groups. Basic wage increases of, say, 15 per cent. or more will contribute to inflation in a way that is directly to the detriment of the lower-paid workers, let us say the lower-paid shop workers who settled within the guidelines last Monday. I cannot construct an argument that requires those shop workers to help foot the inflationary bill either through investment grants or public purchasing.

Mr. David Crouch: On the question of what the right hon. Gentleman calls discretionary action, I think that the whole House would like to know what discretionary action or sanction the

Government are prepared to take against powerful bodies such as the Transport and General Workers Union, which has today told the oil companies that it will call a national strike of all oil tanker drivers on 2nd January in support of a 25 per cent.—plus wage claim, having turned down a 13 per cent. offer. Where is the discretionary action to be applied —on the oil companies or on the TGWU?

Mr. Hattersley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's weaker-minded colleagues will laugh at that. They will also recall, as they do so, that even in the Ford case, when we were asked time after time to make a judgment on the way in which we reacted, we said that we were not prepared to react until the settlement and position was absolutely clear. That applies to the example that the hon. Gentleman has pointed out to me. However, I make it absolutely cleat that I believed that the criticism of us today was not that we had run away from that policy but that we had applied it too fiercely.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to ascertain the nature of the objects which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) is eating, and of which he appears to have a large quantity still available, in order that it may be determined whether they are included amongst the substances which it is permissible to eat in the House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remember in my early days in this House that an hon. Member was unwise enough to try to eat an orange in the Chamber and was pulled up on a point of order. What we must show is courtesy and good manners to each other, which I am quite sure we shall receive.

Mr. Hattersley: For the reasons that I have described, the policy of discretionary sanctions must remain, temporarily at least, as it stands. But clearly, with a new pay round and a new Parliament next year, the whole issue will be decided by the new Labour Government then. I hope that those of my hon. Friends who hold a different view on these matters will accept that none of us in the Government views discretionary action with any great enthusiasm. The simple fact is that we contemplate a return to double-figure


inflation with even less relish and are determined that that undesirable state will be avoided.
There is no doubt that it can be avoided, and today's debate ought to be conducted against the background of our real inflation prospects. In good times and in bad, when the change in the RPI was likely to rise or when it seemed certain to fall, I have always given the House the best forecast at my disposal. That is not to say that my predictions have always been readily accepted.
When I said in June that inflation would remain for the rest of this year at or about the April figure of 8 per cent., the hon. Member for Gloucester asked me whom I thought I was kidding, and whether I would be prepared to repeat my "fraudulent inflation forecast ". She went on to say that
 rising raw material prices, rising interest rates and rising national insurance contributions were bound to have an effect on inflation by the end of this year.
What I said in June was that inflation would remain during 1978 at or about 8 per cent. The five monthly figures for the annual increases which have been published since then are 7·4, 7·8, 8·0, 7·8 and 7·8. That pattern can be preserved. We can and, I believe, will keep inflation within single figures at or about its present level. The evidence for that grows increasingly strong. I hope that people who deny that prospect will understand the damage that they do to the national interest.
Nothing is more likely to push up the inflation rate than the fear that the inflation rate will rise. Millions of trade unionists, accepting the need to hold down inflation, will accept reasonable settlements, as long as they know their wage increases will not be overtaken by increases in the cost of living. Spreading the fear of price escalation actually helps to bring it about.
I have no doubt at all that some Opposition Members have done that intentionally, for I repeat that their only aim and their only interest is political. They know the support that we receive for our success in holding inflation has made a victory on some future occasion certain.
Our aim is different. It is to continue the success we have achieved, to hold

down inflation, and to build on that central policy an economy where unemployment is negligible, where new investment increases year by year, and where prosperity continually expands.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. James Prior: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof
 while stressing the need to achieve a further reduction in the present high rate of inflation, declines to support the Government's arbitrary use of economic sanctions against firms and workers who have negotiated pay settlements beyond a rigid limit which Parliament has not approved ".
The Government motion was full of self-praise and good intentions. Rather like the performance of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, the good intentions and the self-praise are sadly lacking in what the Government have done over the past few years.
It is really extraordinary that for the Government, and certainly for the Treasury Bench, the years 1974, 1975 and 1976 appear never to have existed as far as their statistics and their record are concerned, let alone the policies on which they fought the October 1974 General Election.
As for receiving lessons from the right hon. Gentleman about the behaviour of the Opposition with regard to pay policy, when I think of what I and my right hon. Friends have said and stood up for in the last few months, in trying to support sensible economic policies, I am surprised that he had the cheek to stand at that Dispatch Box and say what he did. I might quote later what the Prime Minister, when he was sitting on these Benches, said to the South Wales coal miners at the time of the miners' strike.
The Secretary of State adopted this afternoon the same tone as the Chancellor of the Exchequer was using on Saturday night on television, when comparing our performance with that of our European partners. I do not think that it is necessary for the House to spend a great deal of time in looking at the record of the past four years or so, but the right hon. Gentleman's motion deals with a number of points and I think that they should be met.
The first is the Government's self-congratulation on controlling inflation. Well, what have they done? West Germany, from February 1974 to August 1978, had inflation of 20·6 per cent., the United States of America 39·7 per cent., Japan 45·5 per cent., Canada 49·1 per cent., France 56·8 per cent., and the United Kingdom 96·1 per cent. Of the major countries only Italy has a worse record than ours, and her record was 98 per cent. That is inflation.
I now turn to the question of improvement in living standards, dealt with in another part of the motion. The Government have done marvellously well there. Looking at the real take-home pay, on average earnings, of a family with two children under 11, at June 1978 prices, we find that the figure for 1970–71 was £64·60, for 1973–74 £71·40, and for 1977–78 £64·90. That is an increase of 30p since 1970–71, and a good deal below the figure in 1973–74. Labour Members below the Gangway have put down an amendment condemning the Conservative Party for mounting
 a serious attack on working-class living standards ".
I can only tell them that the working class would be a lot better off under a Conservative Government than they are under a Labour Government.
Then we come to unemployment. All I will say about unemployment is that when the Conservative Government left office the level of unemployment was below the OECD average, and that under Labour the level of unemployment has been well above the OECD average.
I now turn to the subject of industrial production and productivity. The latest figures have arrived this afternoon. If we take the industrial production index for all industries, we find that in the third quarter of 1973 it was 110·6. In October of this year it was 109·5. In five years we have made absolutely no progress at all.
If we take the international comparisons between other countries and ourselves, we find that Japan is top of the league with 12·8 per cent., and that we are bottom of the league with 0·1 per cent. So much for that record.
The same thing applies to productivity. Between 1973 and 1976, our productivity actually fell, whereas between 1970 and

1973 only Japan had a better record than we had.
Having dealt with the Government's motion—

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Mr. Ronald Atkins(Preston, North)rose—

Mr. Prior: I should like to get on a bit before I give way. The Secretary of State was not very good at giving way earlier.
I now turn to our amendment and to the use of sanctions—although I must not call them sanctions any longer. I have to call them discretionary action ". I suppose that is the great advantage of a university education. The use of sanctions by the Government, in support of their pay policies, goes much wider than the validity of pay policy itself as a weapon in bringing down the level of inflation. It is a major constitutional issue, it concerns the rule of law, whether powers granted by this House should be used for an entirely different purpose from that for which it was granted, and, above all, whether those powers should be used in a way which discriminates against some but not others, and where decisions as to who shall be picked out are made in secret on grounds which are not disclosed. As Terry Becket has recently said,
They are outside the law and they make outlaws of men of integrity.
However passionately I may disagree with the policies—

Mr. Powell: I wonder whether, at this point, on the constitutional issue, the right hon. Gentleman will clear up a point about the wording of the amendment which he is asking the House to support. The last words of it are
 which Parliament has not approved ".
Does that mean that the Opposition would support the arbitrary use of these sanctions if the limit were statutorily fixed, or would they support the use of those sanctions if the limit had been in a White Paper approved by the House as a statement?

Mr. Prior: In this respect we are talking not about the limits of pay policy, whether it be 5 per cent., 10 per cent. or whatever figure is taken, but about the fact that Parliament has never given


approval for sanctions or arbitrary treatment of this nature for purposes other than those for which it was put on the statute book. That is the point that we make in the amendment. It is not related to a specific pay policy figure.

Mr. Powell: Mr. Powell rose—

Mr. Prior: Perhaps I may go one stage further before the right hon. Gentleman intervenes again. If the Government had a statutory pay policy and said that, in the maintenance of that statutory pay policy, they intended to use sanctions or the law in a number of different ways to impose it, that would be an entirely different matter. There would not be much support for it by the Opposition, but at least that would be parliamentary government, as it were. The way that it is being done at the moment is not.

Mr. Powell: Is the House to understand that the words
 which Parliament has not approved 
qualify" economic sanctions ", not a rigid limit?

Mr. Prior: They certainly apply to economic sanctions. The question of a rigid limit does not come into it in this instance.
Last Thursday, when we should have been having this debate, the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) said:
 This is government without explanation, government by concealment. It is happening continually, and it is eroding our democracy." —[Official Report, 7th December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 1642.]
That is the view that we take about these sanctions. I believe that the Executive are subordinate to the supremacy of Parliament and the Government have flouted that principle in this instance.
This issue has come to a head over the treatment of Ford. If it had not been Ford, it would have been some other company. I understand that there are now 242 companies on the so-called black list. We can never be certain, because the number changes from day to day. We know that these decisions are apparently taken by a Cabinet committee. I think it is called EYP, but in theory it does not exist.
I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), when he winds up the debate

for the Opposition, will quote the case of the British Exhibition Contractors' Association—another recent example of sanctions being applied in a most arbitrary and unfair manner which will create the maximum damage to the exhibition industry and to our export business.
I gather that the committee which sits on these sanctions is presided over by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am surprised that he does not defend his policies today. Why is he not taking part in the debate? If he cannot take part in the debate in the House, why does he not perhaps take part in a debate on television? I never knew that the right hon. Gentleman was such a blushing violet. Why did he not take part in the debate on Saturday? The explanation at the start of his television performance was that, owing to the fact that the House of Commons was to debate these matters on the following Wednesday, no questions on sanctions or pay policy would be raised with the Chancellor. Why not? Why could not the country know his views on sanctions? Was he frightened of giving the country his views on sanctions? Why did he not do so? He had the opportunity. As far as I know, we do not have any seven-day rule operating now, except that which the Chancellor chooses to bring in for himself. For the Chancellor and the Government Front Bench, the end justifies the means, even though the end is looking distinctly tatty at the moment.
Last year sanctions were imposed to keep overall increases down to 10 per cent. The final outcome was 16·2 per cent. in manufacturing industry—14·2 per cent. overall.
We are now told that it would be unfair on those who have settled for 5 per cent. if others, such as Ford, can get away with it. That contrasts sharply with the attitude that the Labour Opposition took in 1973–74. Many millions had settled in November 1973, but the present Prime Minister and others went round the country at that time undermining the Conservative Government's policy.
If in this pay round we could have an overall settlement averaging 5 per cent., we all recognise that that would help to keep down inflation and unemployment. That would be a reasonable situation into which to get.
Unthinkable though it is that that figure should be translated into individual flat-rate figures—I believe that goes for all Opposition Members—that is precisely what the Government have sought to do. They have tried to put it all into a single flat-rate figure. I see no signs of that flat-rate figure of 5 per cent. being sustained, not because of anything that we have said, but because tht figure was plucked out of the air—it looked very good indeed ahead of an elction —and no proper attempt was made to sell it to the country, the TUC, the CBI or anyone else at that time.
Last year Ford was not sanctioned. It was early in the pay round. The rigid 10 per cent. was still not being applied, so we are told, although that did not apply to James Mackie, which was blacklisted long before. The Government knew that the new engine plant at Bridgend was at risk if grants were withdrawn. It is in an area where we recognise that we need new development. We also recognise the faith shown by Ford in going to South Wales in the first place. But it also happens to be near the Prime Minister's constituency.
We sometimes wonder about the criterion for development district status, temporary employment subsidy and sanctions. Is it unemployment, breach of pay policy or marginal Labour seats? We have seen too many examples of that in the last couple of years not to be cynical about what is happening.
Ford loses purchasers. What about British Oxygen? Presumably there will be some other device for that company. No criteria are laid down.
What about the TUC and its grants for training? It would be silly to take sanctions against the TUC. But would it not be fairer if that were the purpose of the pay policy?
Ford is a multinational company. Neither the company nor its workers evoke from people the warm-hearted response which perhaps they merit. But no one can deny that in recent years Ford has been an important positive force in the British economy.
Let us consider Ford's record. It has an investment plan of £1,058 million in Britain in the next four years and it contributed £453 million net on the balance of payments this last year. Whilst other

car companies have been propped up by Government aid and have been shedding labour, Ford has increased its labour force by 7,000 in the past three years. At Bridgend it is building the most modern engine plant in the world. It has great influence with Japanese, German and American investors.
Ford withstood a nine-week strike in seeking to defend Government pay policy. Because of it and the inflexibility of the 5 per cent. norm, in the end it probably settled for a higher figure than if it had not been under Government threats. It resulted in enormous damage, loss of profit, increased imports, particularly into car fleets previously held by Ford, and damaged confidence in Ford plants throughout the world.
What is the conclusion of Ford management? If sanctions are to be imposed anyhow, why take on a strike or why take a long one instead of a short one next time round? The conclusion, which many others will draw, is that it destroys the argument that to allow Ford to go unsanctioned would open the door to others.
Ford management, which I have known for many years, is very bitter, and senior management has taken it personally. We can at times be truthfully critical of management—perhaps its management—but this episode will have poisoned relations between the Government and industry in a manner damaging to our future industrial performance.
Given all that I have said, what is the Government's defence? It is that some penalty has to be imposed on firms which break the pay guidelines. The argument runs that management is better able to stand up to union pressure by stating that it will lose contracts or other handouts if it exceeds the guidelines. It enables employers to hide behind the skirts of Government and to say "We would like to pay you more, but your Government will not let us." If the Prime Minister were here, I might almost say, in the words of his old song, "Can't get away to pay you more today, my Government won't let me."
This is a curious position for the Labour Government and Labour Party to be in. Employers, castigated by them day in and day out, year in and year out, for their meanness are now being


enalised if they pay more. It conjures up a picture of cash-loose and fancy-free employers itching to pay more but held back by a stern Chancellor and Prime Minister. That is the picture as some employers see it. Sanctions on employers have become the only weapon which the Government dare to use to try to even up the imbalance in bargaining power which Government policy and legislation have created over the years, particularly in the past four years. That even applies to pay policy itself.
I take as a minor example the operation of schedule 11 to the Employment Protection Act. Indeed, the main justification for schedule 11 is that it is now to act as a safety valve for the Government's pay policy. Therefore, while Ministers give the impression of being tough on 5 per cent., and as Labour Members below the Gangway know, their own legislation is being used to get round the supposedly rigid norm.
When the legislation was being discussed by Parliament, Ministers argued that it would assist only the absolutely low paid. But the main beneficiaries are principally white collar employees, often working in engineering, who are members of unions with good research facilities which are able to exploit some apparent unevenness in pay. Anyone who doubts that should read the recent study on schedule 11 and the concept of the general level by Incomes Data Services.
During 1977, the first year of its operation, there were 149 awards by the Central Arbitration Committee. In the first 11 months of this year, there have been 488, and there is about a four-month delay in getting a hearing. From what one gathers, about 50 per cent. of schedule 11 claims are "collusive ". In other words, the unions and employers are getting, together and looking for a way round pay policy.
I heard yesterday of a case concerning electricians. One group turned down a productivity deal which had been accepted by a number of others. Straight away it made out a case under schedule 11, with no productivity, and put in for exactly the same increases which everyone else received with a productivity scheme. That is standing Government policy on its head. When the

Employment Protection Act was going through the House, we warned the Government time and time again that this would be the effect of what they were seeking to do.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the Conservative Party's position on incomes policy? He has said that the Conservative Party would support the idea of incomes policy if it was based upon variable norms. Presumably one of those norms, albeit variable, would apply to the Ford Motor Company, and that would obviously have to be less than the percentage increase freely bargained in the dispute. Will the right hon. Gentleman now apply all the criteria which he has set out and justify his square peg in this presumably round hole?

Mr. Prior: I shall come a little later to some of what the hon. Gentleman has asked, but I shall read him one paragraph of a note that I prepared precisely to answer the sort of question which I thought he might raise. There are obvious dangers in enunciating a general target or norm. Yet, in framing their monetary and other policies, the Government must come to some conclusions about the likely scope for pay increases if excess public expenditure or large-scale unemployment is to be avoided. Therefore, I and the whole of my party want to see a far greater degree of discussion, in advance of the pay round, on what the nation as a whole can afford to pay. In the long run, that is the only way in which we shall get any sense into wage bargaining. Few dispassionate people now doubt that there is an imbalance of bargaining power and that Government efforts in statutory or imposed pay policy, including the use of sanctions, have resulted in so many distortions, anomalies and arbitrary interventions that they are actually holding back the prosperity and economic performance of the nation.
We must ask ourselves why we alone of the advanced industrial societies have had to resort year after year to such policies in our efforts to control inflation, and why year after year our standard of living has dropped further behind that of our overseas competitors. We have debated these matters for years. That was the reasoning behind "In Place of Strife ", which the last Labour


Government sought to introduce. Of course, that was torpedoed by the present Prime Minister. I bet that he would take a different view today if he had half a chance. That was the logic of the Industrial Relations Act.
I am not suggesting that the approach of those two initiatives should, or could, be copied again. What I am saying is that we cannot go on as we are, on whatever side of the House we may sit. The vast majority of our people and trade unionists are moderate, reasonable people. They are deeply worried about the way things are going. I should like to quote "The Waterfront and Industrial Pioneer ", not a Conservative paper, which commented on what Tom Jackson had to say the other day at a meeting in another part of this building. [HON. MEMBERS: "Moral Rearmament."] So what? I do not happen to be a moral rearmer, but what it says is quite important in this respect: It states:
 Some blame the leadership at the top for the situation. Others point the finger at shop stewards and local officials. But the fact is that we need to look to our roots in Britain today. A nation reaps what it sows in character, attitude and actions, and the wrong seed has been sown.
The truth is that the wrong seed has been sown by the Labour Benches year in and year out ever since the war. Labour Members are now reaping what they have sown, and they do not like it. The sooner they give way to others, the better it will be.
Of course, we need to make changes. I suggest to Labour Members that one of the best things we could do would be to pass quickly, in place of some of the rubbishy legislation with which we are now being inflicted, a piece of legislation which permits the Government to provide funds for secret ballots, election to union office, strike action or other purposes for which a union asks them to be used. Why do not the Government devote some time to a Bill bringing in money for that purpose? After all, I think that it was in 1975 that 100 Labour Members signed a motion asking the Government to do this.
There is no great pressure of Government legislative business at the moment. This would be a measure which would be widely supported throughout the country, and which could do more than

anything else to get some balance and moderation into pay bargaining. [HON. MEMBERS: "What would you do? "] So far as I am concerned, if the Government do not wish to introduce the Bill, we would be quite prepared to introduce it after Christmas, with Government time to push it through the House. Something has to happen and Labour Members know it has to happen. We are not pushing this on the trade unions, but we know that many trade union leaders and many people at shop floor level are demanding it. Why cannot we be sensible in this House for a change and push it through?

Mr. Doug Hoyle: I am interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman says about ballots being held before a strike decision is taken. Would he also agree that a ballot should be held before a strike is called off?

Mr. Prior: We want unions freely to make maximum use of ballots before strikes take place, while strikes are going on, and before people go back to work. I am a democrat. I respect the decisions which those people would reach. I suspect that, in a number of cases, they would vote to strike, but at least they would have had a fair and proper chance of deciding for themselves. That is what we want.
I shall have no faith that the Government are serious about industrial relations or the prosperity of the people until they bring in legislation of that nature. Why do they not do so? I hope that we shall hear from the Minister what are the Government's objections to bringing in legislation of that nature straight away. It is a simple Bill. It would have all-party support. Let us get on with it at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. John Cronin: The right hon. Gentleman has raised an interesting point. Would he give a simple answer? Would a secret ballot have made the slightest difference to the course of the Ford negotiations?

Mr. Prior: I suspect that it might, but I am not even saying that. I am saying, let us have it and let us accept the verdict of true democracy. If the decision is to go on strike, we shall know that that decision has been taken secretly and in the proper manner.
British Leyland is at the moment engaged in a secret ballot. All the workers are engaged. Good luck to them. This is their third ballot. On the first ballot, they voted one way. On the second ballot, they voted another way and rejected what the company wanted to do. Now they are having a third ballot on another issue. I am perfectly prepared to respect the outcome of a secret ballot. The people of this country are thoroughly fed up with seeing shows of hands and intimidation. Let us have some true democracy in the way that our decisions are taken and then those decisions will command much more respect.

Mr. Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a group of Ford workers at Southampton wrote to the hon. Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Mitchell) and sent copies to a number of Members of Parliament representing South of England constituencies asking us to use our best endeavours to bring about what my right hon. Friend is requesting?

Mr. Prior: I know that this was the desire of many of the Ford workers at Southampton. We should respect that. We should also recognise that in the case of Ford the workers broke their contract. Their union leaders supported them in breaking it and Ministers remained silent. The Ford workers jeopardised their future jobs by withdrawing fire and security provisions. Ford cars were not on the stand at the Motor Show. Mr. Moss Evans and the Transport and General Workers Union put in a 60 per cent. claim. By no means could that be called a responsible claim. If we are to have responsible bargaining in this country, we do not start with a figure of 60 per cent. We know that some wild figures will be stated, but let us try to reach a reasonable consensus wherever possible.
Enormous patience and understanding will be needed. We should recognise the fear of insecurity that change can bring. We know that dramatic change is not consistent with our history, but we also know that pressure for change—the dissatisfaction bordering on despair that exists in Britain—will grow and is growing.
Professor Meade, in a recent article, said that this can be done through greater understanding and consensus, otherwise

by the less pleasant manner of being exposed by events. This is what will happen. All the shouting on the Left will not stop these unpalatable things happening to Britain. Why do we not get together and do something in the ways I am suggesting? These are the only ways forward.
We cannot allow a once great country to be relegated to the second division. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) started the negotiations to enter the European Community, the French rejected the approach because we were too strong. We were too powerful a country to join the Community at that time. Last week, we were too weak even to be a member of the EMS. We have lost our strength in 17 years. [Laughter.] If hon. Members laugh about that, let them look at the industrial power of Germany and France and other countries.
We have to do better. We censure the Government tonight, not just because they have chosen the wrong weapons and the wrong policies in the fight against inflation, which is a national problem in which we are all concerned, but because they are using arbitrary and discriminatory power without parliamentary authority and ignoring the demands of common justice. We can win the fight against inflation, but not at the expense of those traditions of freedom and democracy of which this House has been the foremost upholder.
The Prime Minister told the parliamentary Labour Party last Thursday:
 I don't like sanctions. I never have done. They're a messy business and the sooner they are over the better.
I would suggest to all hon. Members that tonight we have the best opportunity of getting rid of them and following the Prime Minister's words.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. David Steel: I intend to follow the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in some of his criticisms of the Government's present policy, but I also note with genuine regret that he was unable to outline, on behalf of the official Opposition, what their pay policy would be if they came to power. I say that with a double note of regret, not just as a debating point but because if he were to


outline what he believes a Conservative Government should do many of us would find it acceptable. I suspect the reason why he does not outline it is that a fair section of his own party would not support him. This is a problem facing the Government as well. It appears that it might face a future Conservative Government with equal force.
It is important that we accept in this House that all parties at one time or another have supported arbitrary pay policies. Indeed, all Government have got away with them in the short run. The most draconian of all have been the total pay freezes introduced by Conservative Governments. We have all accepted at different times that such pay policies are justified to deal with a particular economic crisis.
Last year, when the Government were faced with an inflation rate tottering over 20 per cent., we took the view that we ought to co-operate with them in trying to remedy that crisis. We were faced with a voluntary pay policy which had the support of the TUC and which was therefore largely effective.
I think that the first part of the Government motion is justified. Their track record in the last 18 months has been creditable in reducing the rate of inflation. We can say, without putting it too highly, that the previous policy was, at any rate, semi-successful. The use of sanctions in that period was limited and lasted only a short time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), who speaks for the Liberal Party on trade and industry, spoke in February when we voted with the Government. He made absolutely clear that he expected the Government to use the breathing space which that policy offered to set about constructing a long-term and workmanlike—that was the adjective he used—prices and incomes policy in order to have a long-term policy to put before the House. Our main criticism is that that is precisely what the Government did not do.
An attempt is still being made to pursue the same short-term policy but over the long term and without the agreement of the unions. Therefore, one gets into the almost Gilbertian and certainly unfair situation in which companies like Ford, under pressure from powerful

organisations which have not agreed to the policy, are put in the Government dock and penalised. Also, sanctions are largely "phoney ". If it is not too delicate a matter to raise, I think that sanctions as a general weapon are getting the reputation of being "phoney ", because they will not work.
I do not agree with every announcement of the CBI, but Sir John Methven was right to say the other day:
 Government has now developed a whole panoply of informal and often secret weapons —black lists, contract clauses…and wide discretionary powers under statute—which it is operating in total secrecy with no right of appeal and which it accepts will not be used on a uniform basis ".
My first question is, what is the object of sanctions? Is it punishment? I do not think that the Government say that—

Mr. Hattersley: Mr. Hattersley indicated dissent.

Mr. Steel: —and I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman shake his head. The object is deterrence, but how can one deter others if the policy is not clearly visible to deter? I do not believe that it can be made to work.
Let us consider the admittedly politically-charged question of the trade unions. On 28th November, when asked by a member of the Opposition Front Bench about the fact that the TUC had paid its own employees more than a 5 per cent. increase, the Secretary of State for Employment said:
 The principal consideration in this case, as in so many others, is whether discretionary actions are available to the Government. In this case, discretionary actions are not available."—[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 202.]
That is totally incorrect, because the latest figures show that grants from the Department of Education and Science to the TUC, for perfectly good training purposes, were £1 million this last year. The Prime Minister was near the mark when on the same issue he said two days later that it would not be "sensible" to impose sanctions in that case. I have heard of a case, however, in which a voluntary organisation with fewer employees than the TUC, yet dependent for much of its work on grants from the appropriate Government Department, has been leaned on by the Department for giving one of its employees an increase over 5 per cent.
We cannot have one law for the weak organisations dependent on Government grants and another law, equally unwritten, for the powerful organisations which it would be politically embarrassing to tackle. This is not a defensible policy. Our main criticism is that there is no long-term policy. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) summarised the Government's policy in the debate on the Queen's Speech much more effectively than any Minister has so far done:
 We did not introduce a statutory incomes policy. Well, we did and we did not. It was and was not."—[Official Report, 9th November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 1285.
That remains the best philosophical summary of the Government's position that we have had so far. It is at least an honest summary of the position.
What would a Conservative Government do? The Leader of the Opposition went to the Ford plant on Merseyside either just before the pay claim was made or at about the same time. I remember her saying on television, because I was struck by it at the time, that if she were in office she would simply withdraw from the whole matter and that the company would be left to bargain entirely on its own. That struck me as a fairly horrifying policy.
I know that the right hon. Lady always chides me here and outside for being too young to have a long memory of events, but I do remember 1971 and I know that in that phase of the last Conservative Government's policy, before they came back to a pay policy, that was precisely their policy—in other words, none at all. In the Ford dispute there was a strike of the same duration as the one that we have just had, and there was a settlement, in which the Government did not involve themselves, of 30 per cent.—not 17 per cent. No one will seriously back a return to that kind of policy. It is noticeable that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft did not attempt to argue that policy today.
At some point, particularly if and when we reach a General Election, the Conservative Party must say what its policy is. On the front page of The Times—an historic document—on Wednesday 11th October, with only one column separating them, are two contradictory statements on

pay policy. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft had said in a speech the night before:
 We recognise the dangers of a pay explosion, or the trial of strength that might foreshadow it.
One column further to the right on the same page is a statement made in a television interview by the Leader of the Opposition:
 You will not get…more output unless they are allowed to bargain with their own companies.
At some point, that conflict must be resolved.
We at any rate have resolved it by our consistent espousal of a policy which should be put before the House and enshrined in statute. My hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), who, I am almost relieved to see, is not just yet with us, argued in the last debate on this subject, in a speech that I read carefully, that the only consistent speeches on pay policy were made from this Bench. He added with characteristic modesty that that was because he made most of them himself. I hope that the fact that I am making one will not upset the record of consistency.
I want to outline the three component parts of a sensible prices and incomes policy. First, the main effort of a new prices and incomes policy should be directed to productivity, the increase of profits and the sharing of profits. It is quite the wrong way round for any Government to set up an arbitrary pay limit and say, "By the way, anything that you can manage on productivity is all right." The whole emphasis of the policy should be the other way round. The chronic failure of our economy is the lack of effective output per man and per pound invested compared with our international competitors. It is productivity bargaining and profit-sharing proposals on which we started timidly in the Finance Bill last year.
Why should the Ford workers in America be entitled to a share in the fruits of their labour whereas the Ford workers in Britain must remain effectively wage serfs, not entitled to a share in the considerable success of the company? It means developing much more rapidly forms of industrial democracy and partnership and co-operatives on


which, again, a very small start has been made.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: I am following carefully what the right hon. Gentleman says about profit sharing. What remedy does he suggest for workers in the public service?

Mr. Steel: I accept that different aspects of the principle of the policy have to be applied in different circumstances. There cannot be profit sharing where the State owns the enterprise, but that does not prevent other forms of productivity bargaining or the use of the concept of value added—the precise machinery that we have advocated for our pay policy. That can, of course, apply not to the whole of the public sector but certainly to large parts of it.
It is interesting to note when I talk about our formula for using the value added in an enterprise as the basis of deciding what the pay dividend should be in any one year that if one had applied our formula to the Ford company, in the light of its records the settlement would have been about that which has been achieved. We argue that it is fair and logical and that it ties the economic reward of the individual to the success of the enterprise in which he is involved.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: The right hon. Gentleman has just enunciated a contradiction. Both he and his hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) have set out the ideas for profit sharing, but subject to the overall criteria for incomes policy, which include dividend restraint. How can one have dividend restraint and so deny the shareholders or workers participating in profit sharing the fruits of their productivity at the same time as holding down general increases?

Mr. Steel: First of all, I am not building everything on the precise mechanism of profit sharing that we introduced in the Finance Bill last year, which I recognise is a limited, but none the less encouraging, step in the right direction. Secondly, as Ministers have confirmed many times, when that measure becomes available—I know that it is a year delayed—the dividends received by the individual under profit sharing will fall outside the pay policy. That is one of the scheme's

attractions. That is only the first leg of the pay policy that we want.
The second leg is that we accept that the Government, in consultation with bodies such as the TUC, the CBI and the chambers of commerce, should lay down each year the size of income increase that we can afford to give ourselves over and above productivity and profit-sharing schemes—in other words, the amount that we can afford in terms of the cost of living, national dividend or whatever phrase we care to use. The Government should do that, and do it openly. The Government would then be entitled to penalise any firm that exceeded the provision. We have suggested doing so by imposing a surcharge on the national insurance contribution. That would not necessarily stop inflation. It would not necessarily mean that no one would exceed the Government's provision. However, it would ensure that those who cause inflation pay something back to the nation in compensation.
It is interesting that President Carter, having accepted the principle of a tax-linked scheme, is now to apply the principle in reverse and is offering a tax bonus to employees and firms that keep within the pay guideline. It does not matter which way round the principle is operated. The important thing is to act with the authority of Government so that the position is clear and the calculation is known and foreseeable by all.
The third leg of our pay policy is that we believe that there must be some national referee or pay body to which special cases may be referred for permission to exceed the statutory guideline. The nonsense of the present Government's policy is that every time there is a difficulty, or a pressure group appears in support of a special case or public opinion rallies behind a certain group, an ad hoc inquiry is set up. Each Government over the past 10 years have done grave damage to the economy by abolishing whatever pay body happened to exist when they took office. It is essential to have a permanently accepted body of authority and independence if pay policy is to work effectively.
One of the tasks of a statutory policy is to look after the lowest paid who otherwise fall behind. That is one of the benefits of such a policy. If we do not have a statutory pay policy, how can we,


protect the interests of the lowest paid? I have put before the House the three legs that compose the policy that we think should be laid before the House.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft was right when he said that we have to accept that Britain has been in a long-term decline in comparison with our industrial competitors. The low level of investment, the low level of output and the high level of industrial disruption should be matters of grave concern across the Floor of the House.
The Leader of the Opposition recently acted in rather a silly way. The right hon. Lady is not a stupid woman but on occasions she is a silly woman. I thought that she was rather silly when during questions to the Prime Minister on the EMS she suggested to the Prime Minister that the great decline had happened in the past four and a half years when the Conservative Party was conveniently out of office. That type of remark lowers the level of confidence in politics and political debate.
We are all responsible for Britain being in a long-term decline. Something must be done about that. For example, at Times Newspapers there has been an attempt to bargain with 16 different trade unions on the introduction of new technology. That cannot make sense. I am tired of going to one industry after another and gaining but one impression, although I accept that there are some notable exceptions. When I go to a meeting of a trade union committee in a large company I often find a group of trade unionists sitting in a grubby office and feeling that the world is against them and that the employers are out to do them down. When I go to the board room I meet the directors and the public school accents. They believe that they are the victims of a Trotskyite conspiracy.
Time after time I get the impression that one of the abiding sins of British industry is a lack of communication between the two levels. It is up to us to give a lead. These people are separated in their educational background, in their housing background and increasingly in their Health Service experience. The class divisions in Britain are not paralleled in any of the countries of our industrial competitors. Unless we tackle that problem

we shall never be able to talk about a fair incomes policy, boosting the economy or anything else.
The CBI was right when at its congress it acted against the wishes of its leadership and passed a motion calling for constitutional and electoral reform. That was a move to usher in changes to encourage a feeling of co-operation, partnership, participation and, therefore, higher productivity.
Why do not we see such changes taking place? Why cannot we get a statutory policy that everyone in the House knows and understands? The reason is that the extreme Left in the Government and the extreme Right in the Opposition will not wear it. We might as well accept that that is why we do not have such a policy. We talk about secret ballots and trade unions, but we know perfectly well that if there were a secret ballot among hon. Members—there are good constitutional reasons why that cannot be—there would probably be an overall majority in favour of a policy on the lines of that which I have spelt out. Consensus is prevented by our structure of politics.
I do not believe that the present course can be made to work. That is why I and my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against it tonight. We cannot stand firm on a quicksand. We cannot brandish the big stick if it turns out to be a broken reed. My charge against the Government is that they are not only unwilling to bring a coherent policy before the House for approval but even unprepared to bring forward their ramshackle policy for the approval of the House. If the Government are reluctant to do that, it is high time that we took our different views to he people and said "Let us have a Parliament that is prepared to take some action on these matters."

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: First, I must declare an interest. I am the president of ASTMS. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, who opened the debate on behalf of the Government, is a member of the same union.
I hope that the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) will not object if I do not take up


everything that he said. I wish to concentrate on what has been said on behalf of the major Opposition party and by my right hon. Friend. However, I found the right hon. Gentleman illogical when he said that he and his colleagues are in favour of a coherent statutory incomes policy but that they will be voting against the Government tonight, and, from what I have read in the press, it seems that they will be supporting the Tory amendment. There is no logic in taking that course yet declaring a belief in an incomes policy.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who opened the debate for the Opposition, is now leaving the Chamber. I always listen to the right hon. Gentleman with a great deal of interest. He has helped to clear my mind and the minds of many of my hon. Friends who would have abstained tonight. He has probably drawn us towards the Government Lobby. In that respect he has done a first-class job. He has done an even better job than the Government Chief Whip has been doing for most of the week.
The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of trade union affairs is considerable. I know that he is an active member of APEX. Indeed, he paid the political levy for a long time. He is a man who deserves to be listened to with much interest and attention. However, he should tell us the truth about Tory policy. He does not believe in free collective bargaining of the type that I and other trade unionists support. He believes in applying a strict monetarist policy that would make it almost impossible for people to maintain their present standard of living. If applied, his policy would mean rising unemployment and a lowering of the standard of living of the British people. I hope that those outside the House will not fall for the cant and hypocrisy that I know will come from the Opposition Benches.
These remarks do not mean that I was satisfied with all that my right hon. Friend said. I am far from satisfied with Government policy. In the course of my remarks I hope that I shall cause my right hon. Friend to think again. Unfortunately, Government policy does not line up with the policy of the TUC and the Labour Party conference, although I know that some hon. Members wish to get rid of the conference. Nor does the

Government's policy line up with the policy of most major unions or the national executive of the Labour Party.
The Government's policy has been rejected. That has happened for good reasons. It has been rejected by both sides of industry. The issuing of norms and sanctions makes for real difficulties in the planning of an effective industrial strategy. Unfortunately, there is an undue emphasis on wage control. I must tell my right hon. Friend with sorrow in my heart that there is also a real lack of price control. That is one of my criticisms. Our approach has been—possibly quite rightly —to regard inflation as a problem that must be tackled. Unfortunately, we have made inflation our overriding priority at the expense of other objectives such as the reduction of unemployment and increased economic growth.
The Government operate a monetarist policy. It is not as savage as that which we would have if there were a Conservative Government. But we have gone too far down that road. It is doing much damage to industry. The damage is felt not only by white-collar workers but by other skilled workers. Industry is unable to provide the proper salary structures. Many highly skilled people are leaving industry. That is a tragedy since we all want to restore the industrial base of the nation.
The policy results in labour shortages. British Aerospace and Rolls-Royce are suffering labour shortages because they cannot attract skilled men at the right rate of pay. Many of their potential employees work for sub-contractors who pay them the right rate. That is not the way to achieve a proper and efficient allocation of the country's labour. We should help the companies that are the seed corn of the country's future.
Other anomalies arise from the application of an incomes policy. It is not the right time to freeze salaries and to have inequalities in salary structures. Under the present policy the public sector is more rigidly contained than the private sector. That means that the public sector is falling behind. Many highly skilled people are poorly rewarded because they are dedicated to serving the public sector. That cannot be right.
Incomes policies apply more to the large than to the small firms. They apply more


to the large than to the small groups and to the large than the small groups and more to the employed than to the self-employed. Barristers and accountants, for instance, are not faced with the restrictions with which the rest of the nation must deal. That cannot be justice.
Sanctions represent another element of discrimination. There can be no pretence at fairness in the way in which sanctions are being applied. The Ford Motor Company breached the pay guidelines last year but it escaped sanctions. This year the company can afford to pay increased wages and the workers were right to get what they could. The company has said that it will not breach price guidelines. Yet sanctions are being imposed upon the company. That cannot be justice. How can it be justice when the lowest tender from the most efficient firm is not accepted? Are we to go to a less efficient company? That is the road that we must follow if we impose sacntions.
We run into even greater dangers by following that road. What will we do about the British Oxygen Company? If we apply effective sanctions to BOC, not only the British steel industry but other industries and many hospitals will be closed. That would be nonsense.
What will happen about the tanker drivers? They were promised jam last year. What will they be given this year? Will they be offered only a loaf with no jam or butter on it? They will not accept that. It would also be nonsense to apply sanctions against the oil companies. If the Government tried to do that, British Airways would be closed down at a stroke.
I appeal to the Government to think again. Will they not at least have a moratorium while they discuss the policy again with the TUC and the CBI? Surely that is not too much to ask of the Government. None of us wants a winter of wage discontent. That is not desired by the trade union movement. Surely it is not desired by the Government.
The Government have been able to make the public sector adhere rigidly to the pay guidelines. That has resulted in a worsening of salaries and conditions in the public sector. We are moving towards confrontation in that direction.
Neither the trade unions nor the Government want such a confrontation. Could

we not examine the possibility of ad hoc inquiries into the Health Service, local government and the low pay of technicians in the universities? That would be a way out of the dilemma.
We must look for a way out. It will be no good if we blunder on and hand over the government of the country to the Opposition so that they can ruin the economy by operating it in fits and starts. We must be more flexible in our policies. We must get out of the straitjacket.
The sanctions that are being imposed against Ford are like a gnat on the hide of a rhinoceros. They are not worth the trouble and bother.
It is time that my right hon. Friends listened more to their friends. Too often they listen to their enemies. They know what happened to previous Labour Governments which went down that path. There is immense good will for the Government in the country and in the trade union movement.
Trade unionists do not want a Government returned which will be led by the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) with all the damage that that would do to the trade union movement. It is not too late for the Government to rethink their strategy. They should think again about having a moratorium and setting up ad hoc inquiries into the problems of the low paid.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State spoke with sympathy about the low paid. But they want more than sympathy. They want the wherewithal to pay the bills that will arrive during the bleak winter months. I plead with the Government to think again. The last thing that we want is for the Opposition to be returned to government.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I can claim to have supported the need for incomes policy as strongly and consistently as anyone in this House. This has caused me trouble from time to time, incidentally. But I cannot go along with the sort of nonsense that we have heard today from the Government. Quite frankly, the Government's present proposals are from cloud cuckoo land and nothing else. Their policy is to impose sanctions in order to punish firms which have been forced to yield to blackmail by refusing to buy their products


when they are the cheapest and best available. That is cuckoo in any language under the sun.
The case against the Government's imposition of sanctions was so strongly argued by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that I do not need to go any further into that. He demolished the Government's action.
The wider problem, which remains and has done for 20 years—and this is the biggest problem facing this country apart from productivity—is how to contain wage inflation. This is basically a political and not an economic problem. It can be solved only by political means and not by economic means. That is relevant to today's debate.
There are some other cloud cuckoo-landers, including writers on economics, who say that prices can be kept stable if the money supply, by which I suppose they mean effective demand, is also kept stable. They argue that prices in those circumstances cannot increase and that unemployment would contain excessive wage demands. That is rubbish. Prices can increase in those circumstances. There may be no more money, but there will be fewer goods to buy, and the supply and demand equation will be tilted just the same.
The people who lost their jobs in those circumstances would not be those who received the great wage increases. That latter group would by definition have the industrial muscle to secure such increases and would therefore have the muscle to protect their employment. This is an illusory argument.
There is also the argument about suppressing wage inflation by monetary means. That calls for permanent deflation, because, under that argument, once the deflationary pressure is released the situation returns to the same inflationary state again. All experience in the past 25 years has shown that quite clearly. Some of us have known that policy. We used to call it stop-go 20 years ago. It is just the same these days.
For any Government to have an effective defence against wage inflation they must tackle the problem at its root, which is the monopoly wage demand and the power that is exercised in pushing such demands to the detriment of the general

public. This is a fundamental point and any Government who continue to ignore it are ignoring what matters.
Of course, the difficulties are enormous, as we have known for 20 years. Of course, I agree that we should avoid rigidity, but to sit back and to wait for what is called free collective bargaining—I am not quite sure what that means—to become responsible bargaining is to wait until the Greek calends. There is no chance of that happening, and everyone knows that. The Government recognise that there is no chance of collective bargaining, if it is free, becoming responsible. If that were not so they would not have a wages policy.
That is why in their present policies the Government are attempting to maintain a degree of wage restraint, but their sanctions policy just will not work. In the first place, it applies only to private industry. Sanctions can be imposed in a fuddled way on private industry, but sanctions cannot be imposed upon the public employer. The public are the public employer, and we cannot impose a sanction upon ourselves. There must be different policies for the public and private sectors for dealing with this fundamental problem of wage-push inflation. However, the policies for public and private sectors alike must recognise the causes of this form of inflation.
The first of those causes is the expectations built up beyond what productivity can justify. Not once in his speech did the Secretary of State mention productivity. Why do we not hear about productivity from the Labour side? We hear about wage restraint, wage inflation, wage demands and free collective bargaining. However, we want more productivity. If only we could get our productivity more into line with the levels in other countries, these problems would be easier to deal with. The first real problem of an incomes policy is to get expectations more in line with possible productivity, not by reducing expectations but by increasing productivity.
The second reason for our current problems in wage disputes is the new awareness of the industrial power of disruption in a modern society. A small number of people can cause very great damage, even suffering, to large numbers of the public. That is a totally different situation


from the old industrial dispute between employer and employee. The sight of people pursuing their wage claims in industrial disputes by refusing to admit supplies to the sick in hospital is most distasteful. There is something wrong. This new awareness of the industrial power of disruption must be countered by a new awareness of how wrong it is to use such a weapon.
The third reason for wages policy is the emotions aroused by comparability. We must never underestimate the importance of those emotions. A leading trade unionist said the other day that if there is to be a rat race for wages his union must join in. One understands that. If there is to be a free-for-all, the leader of any union must support the claims of his members. The demand for comparability and for fair, equal and comparable treatment is a very proper fundamental human demand which must be the basis of any rational incomes policy. Sometimes I think that this is the biggest problem of all. There must be exceptions to any general level of wage increases, be that an average, a norm, or whatever. But who is to decide what the exceptions shall be, and who is to ensure that they remain exceptions? The problem we have seen in the last two decades has been that when exceptions are made they soon cease to be exceptions and become the general rule. The people with an exceptional claim in the long run suffer because they are swamped by industrial muscle which enables everyone to get that same treatment.
Obviously many people are entitled to special treatment. There is a lot of talk today about the lower-paid workers in many of our public services. That obviously is true. But who is to decide who is entitled to special treatment, and how is it to be ensured that once these people receive that special treatment it does not then become the general rule? We ought to aim at much greater and more systematic recourse to independent arbitration, which will operate in individual cases within a national framework agreed at "Neddy" or between the main partners in the economy, a framework that would specify what the economy as a whole could bear. Within that framework there should be far more systematic application of the principle of independent arbitra-

tion and the settlement of individual claims.

Mr. Litterick: The right hon. Gentleman has made his point about wages very clearly. Are we to assume that he would be opposed to the examination of prices and profits through a process of what he calls independent arbitration? If that is the case, surely he is asking the working class to submit to arbitrary interference with the circumstances in which their awards are determined while leaving others free to decide what would be exploited levels.

Mr. Maudling: Where a monopoly power is exercised, be it in the case of wage claims, prices or profits, the same considerations must apply. Where there is free competition they do not apply. With monopoly power they must apply irrespective of the source of that power.
I want to make a positive contribution to what could be, possibly, a more effective incomes policy. The public and private sectors must be dealt with separately. In the public sector, the Government must take the responsibility for deciding the level of major wage settlements. There is no other means by which the Government can control settlements in the public sector. Cash limits are useless without strict price control, and the combined action of cash limits and strict price controls will only have the effect of making nationalised industries bankrupt so that the public will have to pay for them.
There is no effective way of controlling the level of wage settlements in the public sector other than by direct action. I should like to see the establishment of an independent body, such as the National Incomes Commission which we set up in 1963 and which did some good work in this area, to which the Government could have recourse and to which both parties could have access before the Government reached a determination. But the ultimate decision in the public sector can rest with the Government only if they are serious in their determination to maintain a policy against wage-push inflation.
In the private sector, I should like to see, in one form or another, independent arbitration made compulsory in major disputes. I agree that it would be difficult and complicated and would need the authority of the House, but I believe that


it would be possible for the House to authorise legislation so that, on major matters, independent arbitration was compulsory. The Government could be given the authority of the House to ensure that when an independent award is made, it is carried out.
Those are my suggestions and my attempt to make a positive contribution. I must stress that a policy for productivity is our greatest national problem. No doubt all the difficulties will be paraded, but the present difficulties parade themselves. The Government are tinkering with the problem. The nation must be told clearly what lies before us if we go on as we are at present.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Myer Galpern): Order. At least 15 right hon. and hon. Members are still anxious to take part in the debate. If hon. Members will limit their speeches to 10 minutes each, everyone who wishes to speak will be accommodated before the speeches in reply begin.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: It is important to start by defining the differences in the attitudes towards the question before the House of my hon. Friends and Conservative Members. It conies ill from the Conservative Party, which introduced the Industrial Relations Act, which ultimately sent dock workers to gaol, to parade their opposition to sanctions, since the sanctions under their Act were the most pernicious that could be imposed in human terms.
My hon. Friends and I have a totally different approach from Conservative Members in our opposition to sanctions. Regardless of what the Government say, sanctions are inextricably bound up with incomes policy and anyone who is opposed to incomes policies, as are many of my hon. Friends, must also oppose sanctions.
The Government are drifting towards a position of the so-called voluntary wages policy fast becoming a statutory policy. Although there may be a difference of approach between this Government and the Conservative Government that introduced the Industrial Relations Act, I must warn that if my right hon Friends

follow their present course much further, we may find that we are establishing a permanent wages policy. That seems to be the direction in which the Government are heading.
For the first three years of the Government's life, they sought a response from the trade union movement in order, according to the Government, to get the economy right and to deal with inflation. The trade union movement was united in its response and gave the Government its blessing for the period that lay ahead.
Since then, we have had phases 1, 2 and 3, and that course will lead inevitably to a statutory wages policy. Those who support such a policy must spell out what the penal clauses will be and how they will be applied, because it is not possible to have an incomes policy of the sort that has been paraded before us today without penal clauses in order to enforce it. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) brought the social contract before the House, he was rather coy on the question of how the Government would respond if wages went outside the norm. There was silence about the Government's intentions in that direction.
The trade union movement has been impatient to move back to free collective bargaining. Those who argue against free collective bargaining were not very vociferous in the 1920s and 1930s when central wage bargaining kept wages pitiably low. It is only since the decentralisation of wage negotiations and the shift of power from the centre to the point of production that wages have been forced up. My hon. Friends and I believe that that was the right move because wages had been held at a lamentably low level for many years. Those who oppose free collective bargaining are arguing, in effect, for a form of central collective bargaining which means that the wheels of history will have to be turned back for the trade union movement.
Our trade unions use their power, which has been described by Conservative Members as a monopoly power, very responsibly. There have been many times when my hon. Friends and I have thought that the 2 million members of the Transport and General Workers' Union should have used their power to achieve certain ends, but there has been


no evidence that the trade union movement is prepared to use its power in circumstances in which my hon. Friends and I believe that it should.
In recent months, there have been unending attacks on the trade union movement. Not a day passes without Conservative Members attacking the movement. It is the responsibility of Labour Ministers to resist those attacks. Whatever the issue, Tory Members will find some way of attacking trade unions. Of course, they never refer to the monopoly position of capitalism or the multinational companies which make the trade union movement look very weak. The power of the multinationals is a demonstration of monopoly power being used effectively every day.
Sanctions are a corollary of an incomes policy and those of us who oppose an incomes policy must also oppose sanctions. There are wider implications. Even some of my hon. Friends have argued that sanctions are a mere cosmetic and do not mean anything because they cannot be effectively applied. Certainly, I do not believe that men of the calibre of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his Cabinet would enter upon a confrontation just to prove a point or to insist on this cosmetic action being taken in order to satisfy the Prime Minister and the Government.
I do not believe that it is the Government's intention to punish Ford or any of our other large entrepreneurs and industries, but I believe that we shall see the application of rigid wages control in the public sector. If it were said "We took on the big boys, including Ford ", the Government would probably be justified in sticking rigidly to 5 per cent. in the public sector. However, the whole motivation of the Government is to satisfy the Prime Minister and the distant future, far beyond what was visualised.
All this became evident when GEC contemplated the establishment of Schreiber at Runcorn. Before the firm could obtain Government finance, it had to agree to adhere to a wages policy running as far ahead as 1981–82—a forward commitment of three or four years. At that time Ministers were not talking

of phases 4, 5 and 6. However, the Government were threatening sanctions against that company, which at Runcorn could have meant the loss of 1,000 jobs.
I hold no brief for the GEC or any other company in respect of sanctions, but my view is that in the present economy we should return to free collective bargaining. It is also necessary that the present sanctions should be ended. Those sanctions can affect certain sections of industry. For example, if dock workers exceed the pay norm, what will happen to the £35 million of Government investment in the London docks? In such circumstances the Government will have no option but to withdraw the money that would have been available for those docks. Because of that action, the whole area will be affected.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection has paraded all the arguments on the subject of low pay. However, a simple way to deal with that problem is to introduce a statutory minimum wage limit. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is challenged on this point, he does not say how the mechanism will operate, or what will happen if the unpaid wages of Ford workers are taken in bags on the following Monday morning to the Liverpool city council in order to pay workers there the money that the workers at Ford have not taken up. That would surely be nonsense, because all that would happen is that Ford profits would rise and the Ford workers would remain underpaid.
There is sufficient evidence to show that if the Government wish to tackle the subject of low wages—and we all accept that it is a major problem—they should bring in a statutory minimum wage. I believe that such a step would deal with the problem virtually overnight. It is obvious that the Government, in the present circumstances which they themselves have set, cannot introduce such measures. They have avoided taking the necessary Socialistic measures to begin to plan the economy for the benefit of the mass of the people. They have attempted to maintain the present system in a period which has seen an international crisis in capitalism. If they continue on this course, they will get further into difficulties.
It is our job not to allow the Labour Government to go too far along that path. If they are heading for the cliffs, someone must tell them to go no further. We must try to head them off. The loyalty of those who argue on those lines cannot be challenged. We are concerned that the Government may be endangering the whole Labour movement. We must not allow the Labour movement to be endangered or sacrificed. Somebody at some time must tell the emperor that he is wearing no clothes.
I have heard nothing from the Labour Front Bench to convince me that tonight's vote is other than an important one for the Labour movement. If the present path is followed by the Labour Government, it will pave the way for the return of a Conservative Government. That will not be the fault of those of us who are trying to steer the Government along the correct lines this evening.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: In view of the request of the Chair to be brief, I shall not take up the arguments of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who spoke with the authentic voice of the Left wing. I shall be interested to see whether the hon. Gentleman will follow his words with action later this evening. Again, because I shall be brief I shall not deal with the remarkable speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—a speech with much of which I agreed. It was a thought-provoking contribution. Instead, I shall concentrate on two short points.
I wish first to deal with the subject of small firms. I thought that the Labour Government had belatedly decided that small firms were a good thing. They had until recently a Minister responsible for small firms. That was the case until the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) resigned in high dudgeon about something or other—a resignation which does not seem to have made very much difference. Furthermore, we thought that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was supposed to be undertaking wonderful and magical things on behalf of small firms.
In this debate we must remind the Government that many small firms depend

for their existence on the success of large firms, such as Ford and others. If Ford had stuck to the 5 per cent. required by the Government and had faced a total and permanent shut-down, that firm would have turned away from the United Kingdom, leaving many small firms and their employees high and dry and in great difficulty. However, Ford settled with its trade unions and, for the time being at any rate, it appears to be staying in this country.
The Government are punishing Ford for taking that action and settling. At least, I presume that they are punishing the firm. One gathers that the sanctions —or discretionary action, as it is called—are meant to be effective. The right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) expressed some doubt about whether the action will be effective. If that is the case, what are we doing with this charade? Why cannot we all go home? On the assumption that the Government intend this action to be effective, the result, if it means anything, must be a cut-back in the activities and investment of firms such as Ford.
One of the groups which will undoubtedly suffer will be the small subcontracting firms, which are wholly dependent on Ford. Whatever blame may or may not attach to Ford, I must emphasise that the small firms are wholly innocent. The Government are in danger of drowning all the minnows in the pond or, to use another phrase, are taking a steamroller to crash the ants in the strawberry bed. How do the Government square such action with all the soft soap and lip-service about small firms? Do they believe that the innocent must suffer with the guilty to get the Government out of the hole which they have dug for themselves?
The second group which will be dismayed by Government policy comprises the many unemployed, or those who are about to become unemployed, in the regions. I have always believed in the importance of regional policy. No Government should allow the less prosperous areas of the United Kingdom to fall into decay. The Labour Government have been right to pursue a policy, as did their predecessors, designed to attract industry to locate operations in areas of high unemployment such as Merseyside,


West Central Scotland or the North-East. It is a difficult enough task to persuade industry to go to the regions, which in the ordinary commercial way it would reject. Therefore, it is necessary to provide incentives to attract industry to go to those areas. How are firms such as Ford, BOC or any other large company, to invest in these regions if they are to be told, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer tells them, that the incentives will be withdrawn if they have to pay more wages to stay in business? The answer is that they will not invest in the assisted areas any more. It may be that the Ford company is too far advanced to withdraw from South Wales. One could hardly blame it if instead it invested abroad. Many other firms finding themselves in the same ludicrous position will undoubtedly reconsider their plans for the future.
Who will suffer? It will not necessarily be the large companies. They will just operate in non-assisted areas subject to industrial development certificates, go abroad or not do anything at all. The areas that are trying to attract industry and the wretched jobless living in those regions will suffer, as will the taxpayer, who will have to foot the increasing social security bill.
I do not know how all this squares with the White Paper, or how it is designed to encourage the regeneration of industry, to guarantee living standards and to make possible a continuing fall in unemployment.
I am not opposed to an incomes policy. It is most unwise for any Government, whether Labour or Conservative, to commit themselves to rejecting an incomes policy as an essential weapon in the armoury against inflation. But this Government's policy is totally ludicrous and inflexible, and it simply will not work.
The Government have got themselves into a "Catch 22" situation. We all know that the 5 per cent. limit was merely a device to demonstrate the Government's alleged toughness for an autumn election. When that election was called off, the Government were hoist with their own petard. As a result, they can hardly be surprised if people in small firms and all those people working and struggling in the regions use one word to describe the Government's protestations of sup-

port, and that word is to be found in the Left-wing amendment. The word is hypocritical".
I support the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). I shall be interested to see whether the Left wing below the Gangway will pluck up the courage to do so as well or if, as I suspect, they are only chocolate soldiers.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. Ron Thomas: The hon. Member for Harrow, Central (Mr. Grant) invites us to join him when he clearly makes out that he and the Front Bench are in favour of a statutory incomes policy. That is in essence what he is saying. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—who has now left, I am sorry to say—made it quite clear that the whole power of the State should be thrown against what he described as monopoly trade unions.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said, throughout the 1920s and the 1930s there was no question of using the power of the State in that way. But as soon as it is felt that the trade unions have perhaps got a little bit too much power, the Government want to introduce political proposals. To say that it is a political problem demanding a political solution is a euphemism for saying that what we need is a law which will bring the whole power of the State against any group of workers who we feel, on some kind of decided capitalist yardstick, have overstepped the mark.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet also mentioned productivity. One thing that is positively correlated in terms of productivity of our competitor countries is the level of capital investment. The people who are represented by Conservative Members have failed dismally to invest in British industry in order to increase productivity. The only way to increase productivity is by more horse power and better capital equipment. The capitalist class in Britain has failed miserably to do that. It would rather invest money abroad or in property, land speculation and currency speculation.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet talk about our problem being wage inflation, but I shall quote Hugh


Scanlon in the days when he really understood these matters. He said that if wage increases were Britain's problem, Detroit would be a desert and Calcutta a paradise. That is the essence of the situation.
The hon. Member for Harrow, Central mentioned Ford and the fact that it might not invest. It is investing in countries where wages are far higher than they are in the United Kingdom. Wages in the United Kingdom are a disgrace, by and large, throughout the European Community.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I do not know why the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) is tackling me with this when I am, to some extent, in agreement with him. I wish we were like Detroit. I wish we were able to have the sort of wages workers have there. But it requires a very different system from the one we have.

Mr. Esmond Bulmer: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Ford workers in Germany produce exactly twice the output of the Ford workers in Britain with the same plant and equipment? How does he account for this?

Mr. Thomas: That is not true, and I suggest that the hon. Member does a simple course in capital widening and deepening. He will then see the difference between what is happening in this country in terms of investment in the car industry and what has happened overseas.
I am simply making the point to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, first, that he wants to see the power of the State brought in whenever it is decided by the Government that a particular group of shop stewards are, to the Conservative Party's way of thinking, protecting too much the workers that they represent, and, secondly, that our problems, so far as they are due to a lack of productivity—and I accept that—are due to a lack of capital investment in British industry. In those terms, British capitalists and the last Conservative Government have an appalling record.

Mr. Loyden: On the question of under-investment, is my hon. Friend aware that in the rubber industry, in which an approach has been made to the trade unions for an increase of about 18 per cent. in productivity—which the trade unions have not resisted—there is a par-

ticular plant on Merseyside where, if one wants a spare part, one must go to the British Museum to find it?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, I am well aware of that and that a good deal of the capital equipment in British industry is many, many times older that that in competitor countries. It is well known that the British workers have far less capital equipment at their elbows than workers in other countries.
I question the whole suggestion—I cannot call it an analysis—from both Front Benches of an incomes policy and sanctions in terms of that policy. One cannot have that kind of incomes policy without sanctions, which at the end of the day means working people going to prison for trying to improve their standard of living. That is what it is all about.
The Secretary of State, who, like me, is a member of ASTMS, says at one minute that other factors enter into inflation. He then says that the Government's whole analysis is based on the premise that only wages create inflation.
The Secretary of State dealt with the index of retail prices. Does he look at the index occasionally? I have the Department of Employment Gazette for November, so let us look at some of the main items. Food, which has a weighting of 25 per cent., has doubled in price since 1974. is that due to increases in the of agricultural workers? Come on, tell me. The answer is "No ". Another major item, which is weighted at 11·3 per cent., is housing which covers mortgages and rents. Is this due to increased wages of those who work in the building industry? No. In the first case, the increase is due to the CAP; in the second, it is due to direct Government policies.
Another item is fuel and light, which has gone up from 100 points in 1974 to 230 in November this year. Is that due to the wage claims of workers in the nationalised electricity industry? It is not. It is due to direct Government and IMF policies.
Yet another item is food consumed outside the home. That has gone up from 100 points to 213. Is that due to the massive wages of those working in Garner's Steak Houses?
Everyone refers to the retail price index, but few ever look at it. People are all


too ready to say that increases in the RPI are due to wages. But there is no evidence for that at all. I shall quote to the House from "Labour's Programme 1973." It said:
Certainly, labour costs are an important element in prices. But they are very far from being the only one, as recent experience has shown. In the period of the Tories' freeze ' earlier this year, food prices soared—but neither the farm workers nor the shop workers received a penny more in wages. Council house rents and the prices of houses for sale shot up relentlessly, while the building workers' pay was frozen.
The same thing applies today when we look at the actual increases in the RPI.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State quotes a 7 per cent. wage increase against a 7 per cent. price increase. He does not tell us whether he is talking about the same period. I remind him that when shop stewards negotiate with management they are already talking about an erosion in their standard of living of 10 per cent. or 12 per cent. over the last 12 months. They are not talking about today. Even leaving that on one side, does not my right hon. Friend realise that, if a worker gets a 7 per cent. pay increase, 30 per cent. of it goes in tax and he will have to pay higher pension rates as well? He is not objecting to that, but with the net result he cannot then meet a 7 per cent. increase in the RPI. It is no good his giving his wife an extra 7 per cent. less 30 per cent. because she will not be able to buy the food with that money.
We have been told about the relationship between inflation and unemployment. Perhaps the Government will tell us why West Germany has the lowest level of inflation in the world, almost, yet it still has more than 1 million unemployed. Are the Government saying that if we get unemployment down to 1 million that will be an economic miracle and we should all be satisfied?

Mr. Max Madden: Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as there being 1 million unemployed in West Germany another 1½ million West Germans have been sent to other countries?

Mr. Thomas: Yes, indeed; they have exported them to other countries.
A lot has been said about low pay. If the Government want to do something about low pay, they can bring in a mini-

mum earnings level. The TUC fixed the sum of £30 some years ago. Prices have doubled since then, so it is now realistic to talk about a £60 minimum earnings level. If the Government are really concerned about low pay, they should realise that they employ most of the low paid—in local authorities or in the public sector. What do they do? They insult them by saying that these workers can have a bit more than 5 per cent. provided they do not get any more than £44·50. What a sum in this day and age.
If Ford workers had forgone part of their legitimate pay claim, what mechanism would transmit that from Ford workers to low-paid workers in the public or private sector? Let us face up to the situation. In 1977 Ford workers had a 12·3 per cent. pay settlement against a background of £121 million in company profits. In 1978, with profits of £246 million, the company offered 5 per cent. The profits were doubled. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) talked about the Ford claim being 60 per cent. He did not worry about Ford profits being more than £246 million. The 5 per cent. was offered against a possible background of Ford making £300 million profit this year.
What are Ford workers supposed to do in those circumstances? What are the workers in the engineering industry supposed to do with this 5 per cent. pay policy when Rolls-Royce management tells them that in order to implement the national agreement it will take out of that 5 per cent. the cost of overtime premiums, night shift premiums and other supplements so that some will get only 2¼ per cent.? Rolls-Royce is sub-contracting work to other firms which ignore the pay policy altogether and which can take on people tomorrow and pay them what they like. There is nothing to prevent a firm from sacking its labour force and taking it back next week on twice the wages.
We all know that this so-called pay policy does not affect those who are self-employed and many others as well. We all know that there are hon. Members who pontificate about industrial democracy but who would take away from the representatives of working people the most important weapon that they have to negotiate freely in the shop, factory or establishment in which they work. They


take this weapon away and give it to some group of unelected bureaucrats who are not answerable to anyone.
The Government were very reluctant to use sanctions for any other purpose. We tried to get them to use sanctions in introducing planning agreements. It was not possible. It has not been possible for four years and it is still not possible. It is only possible to introduce sanctions as part of their counter-inflation policy because they believe that wages create inflation, and therefore they must control wages. They are not prepared to use sanctions on oil companies which say that unless they get the right returns they will not bother to exploit North Sea oil. The Government simply continue to suck up to those oil companies.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Will the hon. Member tell us whether he will vote against the Government tonight since he is making such an excellent speech against them? It appears that nobody on the Government side supports the Government other than the hon. Member for Loughborugh (Mr. Cronin). In fact nearly all Labour Members seem to be against their own Front Bench.

Mr. Thomas: If the hon. Member had been here throughout the debate, he would have found that there was a consensus between the Conservative Front Bench and the Government Front Bench on the need for an incomes policy. The only thing they are arguing about is the kind of sanctions that should be used. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft wants to ensure that we have ballot after ballot after ballot so that at the end of the day we take away any power that the shop stewards might have and we put them in prison, as was the case with the dockers. On this side of the House we have the form of sanctions that has been suggested.
At the beginning of his speech my right hon. Friend talked about discussions with the trade union movement. I hope that he will admit that the working people of this country have made the sacrifice to deal with the situation which besets the Government. The sacrifice was not made by those who live on dividends. We never heard anything about rents or profits or dividends. We have a fiddling little Bill

which talks about dividend control but which simply means that dividends will be paid out later or that there will be increased capital gains. Workers who give up a pay claim forgo it for ever.
The Secretary of State has readily admitted that until he took over there was no control over prices at all. He said that there would be further meetings with the trade unions next Wednesday. I urge him to listen to Labour Party and TUC policy and to say that for the time being we shall have a moratorium on sanctions and that we shall get down to discussions with the TUC, then report our discussions back to the House when we return after Christmas. That is the way to tackle this matter. We should not have a head-on confrontation with those people who are opposed to an incomes policy but who are even more opposed to the Conservatives.

7 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Lewis), in his intervention in the speech of the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), made the point that I was going to make, which is that the Government will be lucky if there is a single speech from the Labour Benches in support of the case put by the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection. There is no vocal support for the Government on those Benches. Those who may support them with their votes tonight are not able between them, on present evidence, to rally even one spokesman from the Government Back Benches in favour of the Government's policy.
I want to make three points very briefly. I hope that the first is relatively non-controversial, but I cannot promise the same for the other two.
For many years many of us have been thinking aloud about incomes policy and about the relative failure of successive British Governments of both parties, and successive Governments in other Western democracies, to find a blueprint for a counter-inflation policy which has been a permanent and comprehensive success. If it were possible—and with the wages policy of this Government it is probably not possible—it would be healthier if the House could meet today genuinely as a


council of the nation, trying to exchange ideas on how such a policy could evolve.
The main point I want to make here is that a substantial contribution to the debate has been made in recent weeks by the Confederation of British Industry. The Government pretend to have a policy, but have none. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said, the 5 per cent. guideline was an election slogan for an election that never happened. It certainly is not a policy. The Trades Union Congress has no counter-inflation policy. I think that its stance is preferable to the Government's, because it does not pretend to have a policy. It refused to sign the piece of paper that was laboriously drafted, after weeks of effort by representatives of the Government and the TUC, to pretend that there was common ground.
I think that I am the first person in this debate to mention the CBI's policy. I do not say that it has produced a complete blueprint—no one has done that—but it has gone much further in producing constructive proposals for dealing with these permanent and difficult problems than anyone, certainly in Government or TUC circles.
I commend to the House chapter 7 of "Britain Means Business 1978 ", which was approved at the CBI national conference in Brighton a few weeks ago. I do not intend to outline the whole chapter. The annual timetable suggested in it involves the meeting of a forum every year, probably in May or June, when management and union views and other views would be put, to try to get as near as possible to a consensus on what the nation could afford and on the priorities and guidelines that should affect wages and salaries settlements in the following 12 months.
The CBI goes on to propose that settlements in the private sector should be brought together as near as possible in a few weeks in the autumn, so that around the beginning of November there could be a general increase, at least in the main pacemaking settlements, which would be common and would not be subject to leapfrogging during the ensuing 12 months.
The CBI proposes as a next step that the public sector should reach settlements in the spring to take effect from the beginning of the financial year. It proposes that the Budget should be, as it were, the last act in this cycle, and that the nature of the Budget should take account of the nature of wage and salary settlements already agreed. The process would then start again for the following year.
I believe that that is a framework within which we could have the right sort of co-operation between the parties involved, without having a corporatist solution. We could combine a generally moderate approach to wage and salary settlements with the degree of flexibility that we need in order to deal with incentives and to reward success. I leave that thought particularly with my right hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench, because I hope that a policy of that kind will be the policy on which the incoming Conservative Government will build when they take office shortly.
I want next to be a little more controversial and to refer particularly to the way in which the Ford dispute underlined the positive discrimination practised by this Government over the past four and a half years in favour of the trade union movement—or at any rate of trade union activists, which is not the same thing—and against management. We have had steadily, step by step, over the past four and a half years a shift in the balance of power, which has been bad for industry and above all bad for rank and file trade unionists. That shift in the balance of power away from management has been one of the reasons for Britain's relative economic decline in recent years. It has been assisted by the Government's legislation and by specific acts of Government in various situations.
The Ford dispute underlines that. Here I draw attention to the conduct of both sides in the dispute. I should like to hear tonight from any sponsored members of the unions involved. I do not blame the union side at Ford's for pressing for a settlement above 5 per cent. I think that the state of the company's finances justified that, and that the union was right to press for it. But the way in which it pursued the claim was outrageous. I give three examples.
First, a strike was called immediately the management's first reaction was known. One message that should go out from this House and should be reflected on the Government Front Bench is that the strike weapon, if it is ever to be used, should be used as a weapon of last resort, not as a weapon of first resort. If there had to be a strike at Ford—and I am not convinced that there need have been one at all—it should have been of much shorter duration, causing less damage to the company and the country and losing a smaller amount of wages for the members involved.
The second outrageous thing was that the strike was called when there was still a month to run of the old agreement at Ford, which contained a no-strike clause. There was a time when trade union leaders of the calibre of Ernest Bevin, Arthur Deakin or Bill Carron would have said "We must keep our word. We have pledged our word. We expect employers to keep their side of the bargain and we must keep ours." Now it seems to be fashionable for trade union leaders to regard such a pledge as a mere formality that can be ignored.
The third aspect of that industrial action which I find intolerable is that firemen, safety officers and security officers were taken out on strike along with everyone else. I gather that that is the first time that has ever happened in the history of labour relations in the Ford Motor Company, which has been a stormy history, as we all know. As a result, expensive and unique capital equipment was left unguarded, or was guarded by volunteers who were not trained for the job. The future livelihood of everyone who worked at Ford was put in jeopardy by that particularly stupid piece of union militancy. Yet the unions come out of that dispute without any sanctions being applied against them, without any real word of criticism of them from right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches.
How does the management come out of the dispute? Here I rely on the report that was sent to all hon. Members by Sir Terence Beckett on 27th November. The management went into the negotiations intending, as Sir Terence said—and I accept this—to try to achieve two things: a substantial settlement that would be

fair to the workers involved, and would be seen to be fair, and an improvement in productivity, above all by reducing the number of unofficial stoppages, of which there had been a great number in the previous year or two.
I believe that if Sir Terence and his colleagues had been able to conduct those negotiations without arm-twisting by the Government they would have reached a quicker settlement and would have done so without a strike. The amount agreed would certainly have been above 5 per cent., but it would probably have been below 17 per cent., which was the value of the ultimate settlement. But they took account of the Government's wishes. They tried to carry out the Government's policy as well as their own policy. They tried very hard, and they paid a considerable price for trying hard.
After that, Sir Terence Beckett was summoned to a kangaroo court composed of the Secretaries of State for Industry, Prices and Consumer Protection and Employment. Indeed, he was summoned twice, first to make his defence and secondly to receive his sentence. The members of the kangaroo court were prosecutors, judges and jury in a trial action for which there was no basis in law. Sir Terence knew and the Secretaries of State knew that they had found him guilty before he went in the first time.
I have one criticism and only one to make of Sir Terence Beckett's handling of this affair. It is that he should not have bothered to turn up at those meetings. He should have treated that ridiculous tribunal with the contempt that it deserved, and I hope that any future leaders of industry will say "We will go and talk to Ministers about serious policy matters, but we will not provide any kind of respectable facade for proceedings of this kind."
My final remarks concern sanctions. The case has been deployed from the Opposition Benches in a previous debate. It has been deployed again today in a speech of remarkable force by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. The one aspect which I wish to underline was not dealt with by the Secretary of State, and it ought to be dealt with. It is the simple constitutional point.
These sanctions are a constitutional outrage. If the Government intend to adopt


this policy, it ought to be founded in legislation. They ought to have the courage to come to this House and accept the verdict of the House on whether they should have power to fine people or to take privileges away from people because of their policies.
It is a constitutional convention that Ministers should use power given to them by legislation for the purposes of that legislation—the purposes generally as intended by Parliament in the first place and generally as defined in the long title of the Act of Parliament concerned. In other words, export guarantees should be granted or withheld according to criteria relating to exports and the firm applying for the export credit. Financial assistance given to firms to develop in areas of heavy unemployment should be allocated according to regional policy and the criteria involved.
We must bear in mind that, over the last generation or two, successive Governments have acquired more powers—powers granted by Parliament and granted for purposes which most of us accept. But if Governments are to use those powers to the limit of legal acceptability in the sense that they are not acting in a way which can be successfully challenged in a court, their powers become unlimited.
I am trying to suggest to Government supporters that as members of a democratic party—I assume that that is still their claim—democratically elected for the time being, they are the guardians of the constitution. They are its custodians. If they manipulate power in this way, they strike a blow at the very democracy which has created them and all of us.
It is no coincidence that this is happening in 1978, late in a decade when the Labour Party has departed step by step from the old democratic traditions of its pioneers and those who led it until the early 1960s.

Mr. Cronin: Surely it is a fundamental democratic privilege for any purchaser to choose the vendor that he wants when he makes a purchase. I should have thought that the Government, in using their discretion about whether anyone should receive special consideration in the form of export guarantees, temporary employment subsidy or a subsidy for opening

a factory in a development area, should bear in mind the company's reliability from the point of view of the national interest.

Mr. Prentice: My argument is that the Government should bear in mind that company's reliability in respect of the kind of aid it is receiving. If it applies for export credit, whether it is granted will depend upon its viability as a business, its track record in exports, and so on, but it should not depend on whether it has offended Government policy in respect of incomes. The hon. Member for Lough-borough (Mr. Cronin) intends, presumably, to take part in the debate, and I hope that he will develop the argument that he has just advanced. But it should be totally unacceptable that a Government should use powers of this magnitude which were intended for quite different purposes to try to reinforce a policy for which they have no other legal sanctions to use.
Hon. Members on the Right wing of the Labour Party—I think that the hon. Member for Loughborough is one of them—should reflect on the extent to which their party has departed from democratic standards since 1970, this being a significant example of that trend. This is a decade in which we have seen leading members of the Labour Party attack the rule of law by making working-class heroes of the law breakers at Pentonville, the Shrewsbury pickets and the councillors at Clay Cross. It is no accident that that contempt for the rule of law should now be reflected in contempt for the unwritten conventions of our constitution. Neither is it a coincidence that the Labour Party national executive committee this morning discussed a draft manifesto which would, amongst other things, vastly increase the power of the State, weaken the power of Parliament and make this country a less democratic society.
These are the issues which Government supporters face. It is significant that, with the exception of the hon. Member for Loughborough and possibly the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), for most of the debate there has been no one on the Government Benches who was likely to say a word in defence of the Government. But they ought to be very worried about the direction in which the Government are moving, and they


ought by their votes tonight to indicate to Ministers that this simply will not do and that there has to be a change in direction.

7.17 p.m.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) has been lecturing this House on democracy, equity and fairness in the trade union movement. I venture to think that his electors have a view about his opinion of what constitutes democracy, having sent him here for specific reasons which he has consistently violated in the past year or so.
From the Tory Front Bench we have heard the voice of Moral Rearmament. We have heard from the Liberals why they should not vote with the Tories, but will. We have heard from the Government their opposition to their own party and the TUC. Those right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches who talk about me and my hon. Friends giving the Left-wing viewpoint of the Labour Party know that the group of us who sit below the Gangway are giving the authentic viewpoint of the Labour Party and the TUC which has been arrived at democratically in full conferences, and that the Government are in almost headlong collision with that viewpoint.
My hon. Friends and I put down in my name an important amendment to the Government's motion. We are sad that it will not be called. If it had been, the difficulty, not to say the dilemma, of the Government and of ourselves would have been eased considerably. But we have listened to the Tories crowing and have taken note of it.
It will not be surprising, therefore, if I follow the general lines of the amendment which embodies the policy of the Labour movement in its entirety. The Government are now in open and headlong collision with the entire Labour movement regarding their policies. That is why my hon. Friends and I, very sadly, are opposing the Government. The Government's line is in direct opposition to that of the Labour Party and the TUC, and they know that.
We therefore have a situation in which the Tories are opposed to the policies of the Labour movement and the Government Front Bench are opposed to those

policies. The Government claim that, despite this, they have the support of the general public. That, of course, is an imponderable and there is no proof of it whatsoever. Opinion polls, the North Berwick election and so on have made the Government dizzy with success. Our conclusions stem from conferences which took decisions. Those decisions are on record, and we know that. But no one should be so arrogant as to assume that what the general public believes at this moment is in line with our thinking. The lack of support for the 5 per cent. guideline and sanctions on the part of the organised Labour Party and the TUC is on the official record. It needs no polls to prove it.
The Tories' position is one of sheer hypocrisy. Their record over scores of years illustrates this. The Industrial Relations Act was the most horrific and unworkable sanction of all. The Opposition put that on the statute book and then finally they fled from it and admitted that it was totally unworkable. It was a draconian measure which the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East did not mention this evening. That apparently was some kind of democratic measure of his new friends. But—

Mr. Prentice: Mr. Prenticerose—

Mr. Flannery: In a moment. The right hon. Gentleman attacked the Industrial Relations Act when he was on the Labour Benches. Does he now agree with it?

Mr. Prentice: I criticised it then and I still criticise it in retrospect. The difference between the Industrial Relations Act and the sanctions we are discussing today is that the former was approved through the proper processes of Parliament and was the law of the land. Therefore, it should have been observed—although it was not always. What we are talking about now is sanctions which are not founded on the rule of law at all.

Mr. Flannery: The right hon. Gentleman knows that working people throughout the ages have struggled and fought against unjust laws which bound them hand and foot and prevented trade unions from working properly.
Let us take the question of wages. Whenever did a Tory Government, all through the long, weary years of the


building up of the trade union and labour movement, support a fair wage for any working man or woman? The Tories are on record as relentlessly attacking, with all the means in their power, working men and women who struggled for a living wage. We all know what they would do if they were in power. They would, as our amendment says, mount a serious attack—[Interruption.] Hon. Members who come into the Chamber only occasionally to intervene should listen to what I am saying and see whether it is fair or unfair.
The Tories would mount a serious attack on the living standards of all working people. Working people know this; let us make no mistake about it. The Tories would attack the unions, no matter what they say about being able to live in peace with them. That is one of the first things they would do. Most of them nostalgically look back to the Industrial Relations Act and would love that Act to be on the statute book once again. The Tories would hold down wages, except, of course, their own and those of their chums, which would rocket, as Mr. Barber made them rocket when he was in power. They would massively —and it is on record—cut public expenditure.
That is the reality of what the Tories would do. What does that mean? They would launch a full-scale attack on the education system. They are on record as having said that the first thing they would do when they came to office would be to repeal the 1976 Act on comprehensive education. That would require an all-out onslaught to unscramble the 83 per cent. of children who are now attending comprehensive schools.
The Tories would attack the nationalised industries—they always do. They would cut the Health Service, because cuts in public expenditure mean that there would be an all-out onslaught on the Health Service, which is so dear to the hearts of our people and which needs much more money allocated to it for the care of the sick, the old and so on. They would help the rich.
These are the things which, traditionally, the Tory Party has always done.

Mr. Thomas Swain: Doss my hon. Friend agree that

prior to the Industrial Relations Act, which was vicious in its essence and application, the Trades Dispute Act 1927, passed by a Tory Government, who refused recognition to the trade unions until at least 1942, had a serious effect on the living standards of trade unionists? It is a bit of historic fact, but going back over the years and looking at the Industrial Relations Act, as it was framed, we see that it was specifically based on the non-recognition of trade unions within the 1927 Act.

Mr. Flannery: Of course, I agree with my hon. Friend. What he is saying is that whenever the Tories are in power they make inroads into the living standards and the conditions of working people up to the point where the working people say "No further ", as they did, for instance, in 1974.
The so-called 5 per cent. pay guideline has long been overrun. The Government should look back at the distant position that the 5 per cent. embodies. It has gone. It is as dead as the dodo. By standing up to defend this overrun position, the Government weaken their own credibility in the eyes of working people. Let us take, for example, Mr. Jackson and Mr. Weighell at the Labour Party conference and the TUC. As soon as they went back to their membership, and boasted about having consulted them, they received a most resounding kick in the backside from their members. They are now having to admit that their own membership, their own executives, have instructed them, quite bluntly, to ask for increases far in excess of 5 per cent. We all know that, whenever the 5 per cent. limit comes into question, only a handful of people have accepted it compared with the millions in the trade union movement.
We know the position at Ford. There is no need to go over that, though hon. Gentlemen opposite can do so if they wish. We know the position of the Bakers' Union, for instance, which is in dispute at the moment. We know that the National Union of Journalists is asking for a £20 increase. We also know—and I have spoken from platforms with them —that the public service workers, represented by NUPE, are ready to move into the struggle. The miners—and it must


irk Mr. Gormley to have to admit this—are geared and ready for action.
All these working people have categorically stated that the 5 per cent. limit has gone. It is historic. It has been relegated to the dustbin where it ought to be. Workers are applying for bigger wage settlements. The finest thing that the Government could do would be to reconcile themselves to the harsh reality of that fact and be flexible and yielding to some degree, and then possibly what they wish for will emerge.
The teachers are also dissatisfied. I remember once when they had a strike that they were accused of being wildcat strikers. It was the first strike that they had had in 100 years, but the hon. Gentlemen who control the newspapers and editors know how to slam practically everybody who asks for a working wage.
I am sure that we have noticed, incidentally, that every worker who supports the Government on the 5 per cent. policy makes an exception in his own case. Workers want restraint for others, but when it comes to their own unions and themselves they want an exception to be made. It is enough to make anyone cynical, but that is the fact of the matter. When prices are rising and people have families to clothe and feed and have rents to pay or mortgage repayments to make—and these costs are all rising—it is physically impossible for them to live with only a 5 per cent. increase.
Therefore, they have notified their own Government, whom they have put in office, that that has gone and that they wish that the Government would accommodate themselves to it. Incomes policies are for other groupings, other unions and other people. The 5 per cent. has been a dead duck for a long time, and it is time that the Government realised that.
I now briefly mention the question of sanctions—or, to use a euphemism, discretionary action. The very fact that the Government are using the euphemism for what was called sanctions shows some slight retreat from the position they have occupied hitherto. Who knows?—they may unbend on this, because it is totally unworkable. The Government have french-polished themselves into a corner, and the Tories love it. The Tories are as happy as larks about the Government having pushed themselves into this diffi-

cult position. They are stubbornly clinging on to another position like the 5 per cent., which has been overrun. The Government are not only engaging in a desperate and unworkable measure. They are, firstly, antagonising their own supporters, who put them in office, and, secondly, they are a godsend to the Tories by engaging in this policy. Of course, as one would expect, with their massive propaganda machine, the Tories are exploiting these two major factors to the full.
My hon. Friends and I have adopted every possible measure of compromise to try to meet our Government half way. We have done our utmost to persuade the Government to heed their own movement, which built them and put them in office. Few as we may be—and we are the people who are conducting the struggle in this place; there are very few others—we occupy the fundamental position of the entire organised trade union and Labour movement. We on these Benches have more right than anyone to give that viewpoint, but we have been rebuffed—

Mr. Crouch: Which Lobby will the hon. Gentleman be going into tonight?

Mr. Flannery: I expect the hon. Gentleman to be shouting out and interrupting. I tolerate it, but—

Mr. Crouch: Will the hon. Member give way?

Mr. Flannery: No, I have no time to give way. I am nearing the end of what I want to say, and others wish to speak.

Mr. Crouch: I want to know in which Lobby the hon. Member will be voting.

Mr. Flannery: The hon. Member will just have to hang on for that.
I return to the point I was making. From these Benches we are putting the central fundamental position of the Labour movement. We have been rebuffed on each and every occasion. But we believe that in the long run the stand that we are making here will be vindicated in the eyes of all of the people who have put us here.
We make one last plea to the Government, whose staunchest supporters we count ourselves to be: cease being intransigent and unify our ranks by meeting us


half way. That would be an honourable path for the Government to follow.

7.33 p.m.

Mr. Michael Latham: On 1st January the Prime Minister said on radio that the sanctions blacklist was
 a figment of the media's imagination to a large extent.
Five days later, Mr. J. G. Littler, a senior Treasury official, admitted in writing to the director of personnel of the John Lewis Partnership that the company was already on a circulated blacklist—those were the very words used in his letter—and had been so far over a month without anyone notifying the partnership officially to that effect.
The Prime Minister's blunder was also made four days before the Department of Transport told George Wimpey and Company that the whole group had been placed on a "tender blacklist ". The company's crime was to have a subsidiary company which had not broken the 10 per cent. guidelines and which did not intend to break them but which was a member of a trade association which had done so.
Both of those deplorable incidents—there have been others—illustrate the shambolic way in which this hole-in-the-corner policy has been administered.
Before dealing with the present position, I want to mention two other things about those classic blunders over John Lewis and Wimpey. I take Wimpey first. The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection said to the House in the debate on 7th February that Wimpey was told that, because its subsidiaries seemed likely to become party to an agreement outside the guidelines, "certain consequences might ensue "for the whole group. Because the agreement was not made, no action was taken, and he said:
 There is no more and no less to it than that."—[Official Report, 7th February 1978; Vol. 943, c. 1268.]
As I tried to show in my speech in that debate, the right hon. Gentleman's information was completely inadequate and incorrect.
Subsequently, on 9th February, a Treasury spokesman was quoted in the newspaper Construction News as admitting that Wimpey had been blacklisted,

and he added that this was quite deliberate, saying:
 The firm did not pay the money. This was really the object of the exercise—to stop them from paying. We don't want to shut any door after the horse has bolted.
He admitted that the blacklisting was a "little premature "but said that this was Treasury policy.
In short, the Secretary of State was misled by his officials. The firm was blacklisted incorrectly, in secret, without any right of appeal and without ever having broken the guidelines. No apology was ever given to the firm. Nine months after that debate, no Minister has ever seen fit to apologise to the House.
Regarding John Lewis, I would advise all of my hon. Friends to read the published correspondence on the matter, because it is an absolute gold mine of unconscious humour and bureaucratic confusion. It illustrates perfectly the lamentable incompetence of the whole policy. Let us take, for example, the note of the telephone conversation on 11th August 1977 between a lady civil servant of the Department of Employment and the John Lewis director of personnel. It says:
 She accepted that the partnership had been placed in a very difficult position and said that the inequities in the pay policy had got through to the higher levels of the Government. There was no suggestion that the partnership had acted improperly or irresponsibly. We were a very large and respected company, and they fully understood our difficulties, but on their side they were bound to apply the policy as it stood, even if it produced unfairness.
That comes from the company's record of the conversation. The Department has admitted that it does not have one, but it does not deny its accuracy, and, indeed, has published it. The note concludes with the following observation, for the file, by Mr. Andrews about that lady civil servant. He said:
 She was obviously extremely embarrassed by the whole affair and clearly wished that the queries had never arisen. She gave the impression that she also rather wished that the ground would open and swallow her up.
I bet she did. No one should blame her, because the truth is that as all this policy has been trotted out, she had been given an impossible job to do. The John Lewis farce arose because the company, which employs 25,000 people and whose wage bill is £54 million, decided to pay 444 typists and salesmen an extra £5 or £6


a week in order to prevent them from leaving to work for competitors. The addition to the wage bill of the company was £27,000, or 0·002 per cent. of the total bill. For this, the whole absurd structure of the black list was trotted out, and it was trotted out in the most incompetent way.
The truth of this squalid affair is really very simple. The Government did not know what to do. They let off Ford and Vauxhall last year but blacklisted Mackies. This year, in May, they let off Mackie, which had not renegotiated its agreement, so that it could complete a deal with Bangladesh—and then they blacklisted Ford.
It is no wonder that civil servants cannot administer such a policy. It is no wonder that these farcical blunders take place. It is no wonder that the press could not get any sense out of the Ministry at the time as to what sanctions on Ford were supposed to be. It is no wonder that the lady civil servant dealing with John Lewis wished that the ground would open and swallow her up. It is quite deplorable for Ministers to place their officials in so exposed and indefensible a position by this lawless, secret and undefined procedure.
That brings me to the strange behaviour of the dog which did not bark in the night—the Department of the Environment. The building industry, in which I work and have worked for 11 years, is well known to have a system of rampant site bargaining. Indeed, in 1972, the TUC accused it of leading wage inflation. Men are paid according to site pressure. At present, some bricklayers in the South-East are getting £150 a week or more, and wage costs are rising rapidly. Yet, with the farcical and erroneous exception of Wimpey's, no building contractor has ever been blacklisted since stage 1 began four years ago, but no one believes that no contractor has not paid over the odds at some stage.
Why should this be? After all, the Department of the Environment published elaborate details of how its black list would be compiled as long ago as December 1975. It would involve circulars to local councils, giving the names of which firms were not to be allowed to tender. Why has this never happened?
I believe that the reasons are twofold. First, the Department has discovered to its embarrassment that if a local council, on the Department's advice, knowingly refused to accept the lowest tender because a firm was on the non-statutory black list for breaking the voluntary pay policy, it would be open to the threat of investigation by the district auditor and possible surcharge for wasting ratepayers' money. Secondly, the officials themselves might be left to carry the can if a mistake were made, as it was made over Wimpey.
In January 1976 I asked two Questions of the Secretary of State for the Environment. The first was whether the lists of contractors to be denied the right of tender
 should be contained in a normal departmental circular signed by an official of his Department, published and generally available to the public, and whether he would accept full personal responsibility, including any possible legal responsibility, for any errors which might be contained in such a document.
The Under-Secretary of State lamely replied:
 It is contemplated that the normal departmental circular procedure would be adopted should the need ever arise. I am advised that my right hon. Friend's personal responsibility raises legal questions and would depend on the circumstances of the case.
In answer to a second Question from me about protecting civil servants from libel actions if they erroneously blacklisted a contractor, the Under-Secretary said:
 It is the practice to indemnify civil servants against claims brought against them arising out of acts committed bona fide and within the scope of their employment"— [Official Report, 26th January 1976; Vol. 904, c. 18–19.]
In short, if a mess-up takes place, as has happened, the civil servant is left hanging out to dry. The Minister's personal responsibility depends on the circumstances of the case, and if necessary the taxpayer will cough up to indemnify. No wonder the DOE does not want to look too carefully at what is happening on building sites.
But what about the new contract conditions announced to the House last February? It is true that the DOE has imposed these conditions by force majeure in the areas where it is itself the direct client. It did not, incidentally, consult the building industry about that but


simply told it. It has done nothing at all about imposing the contract clauses on local government, which is the building industry's largest customer, because it has no powers to do so.
Indeed, when I exchanged correspondence in the spring with the Secretary of State for the Environment about an apparent attempt by the North Tyneside borough council to impose the new conditions unilaterally—an attempt which was subsequently abandoned—the Secretary of State confirmed that he had no power to require local authorities to use these new conditions, and that—the House will be amazed to hear—he did not even intend to suggest to them that they should do. I was told:
 A local authority seeking guidance of this Department at this point in time would be advised to continue using the old contract conditions.
That is what the Secretary of State wrote to me on 15th May. The Secretary of State is shrewd enough to see that the whole black list and contract conditions policy is a bureaucratic nonsense, and he wants as little to do with it as possible.
The whole policy of sanctions reveals the arrogance of power. Governments have no right to blacklist honest companies which have broken no law. The Government have tried to use the apparatus of the State to cow firms into submission and in many cases they have succeeded. Yet it is open to any firm, when asked by the Department of Employment for details of its wage increases, to tell it to mind its own business. But so powerful is the State, in both its purchasing nexus and its bureaucratic authority, that we even hear of firms favouring a black list because it makes it easier to negotiate with the trade unions.
So it has come to this, in Socialist Britain 1978. Business men have become so accustomed to receiving handouts, or being pushed around by the State, that they now welcome State direction, backed by no force of law, to tell them what to offer their workpeople in wages. But there is no reason why this House should put up with this. We are here to make laws and to check a Government who do not keep to the law. The Government have not dared to pass a law on wage limits. They have not even dared to introduce one. So they have no right

to act as if they had such powers or to do so in a secret and indefensible manner. Ministers know that this policy has failed. They know that their Back Benchers are increasingly reluctant to support them. They should accept the logic of events and act with honour. The policy should be abandoned now.

7.46 p.m.

Mr. John Cronin: The hon. Member for Melton (Mr. Latham) made an interesting speech. I am sure that all of us, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were edified to hear of the difficulties which arise with conscientious lady civil servants and building contractors and the minute problems which arise. But sanctions—or discriminatory action—are a somewhat crude weapon, and there are bound to be occasional difficulties of this nature.
I am rather puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's insistence that the Government are doing something illegal or unconstitutional. Surely it is one of the basic rights of any democratic society for any purchaser to choose from any vendor he wishes when he wants to make a transaction. I should have thought that the Government would be entitled to have the same freedom.
With regard to the other matters, such as export guarantees and temporary employment subsidy, it is perfectly right that the Government should take into consideration the national interest when deciding whether to make grants of this nature. I should have thought that this was self-evident. It happens on frequent occasions.
If a company is exporting in a way which is contrary to our foreign policy, it is quite customary for the Government to intervene and prevent such action from taking place, and to prevent the company from getting a licence to export. That is done purely in the national interest. Why it should be considered to be contrary to the national interest to take action on wages—the most fundamental point of our economy at the moment—I am at a loss to understand. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made his case.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made his usual rather friendly and persuasive speech. In fact, I heard him say that the whole Tory Party was strongly in favour of wages being kept to an average of not more than 5 per


cent. higher than they were in the previous year. But he did not give any indication as to what alternative he had to the Government's present policy. He suggested that there should be ballots before strikes, but is there any hon. Member who really thinks that balloting would have had the slightest effect on the recent Ford negotiations?
I suggest that when a powerful union is seeking to increase the income of its members to an unreasonable extent, if the psychological factors are right the union members will ballot in favour of a strike, just as they will enthusiastically put up their hands in favour of a strike. For that reason, there must be some sort of Government control.
One of the sad circumstances from the point of view of Labour Members is that there has been some breach—I think quite a small one—of the accord which has continued between the Trades Union Congress and the Government up to the present. I sympathise with those of my hon. Friends who probably feel the same about it as I do. But I suggest that it is quite a minor breach of good relations, because the TUC is still committed to rendering some assistance in the way of keeping a close watch on progress towards controlling inflation and in considering action.
It is heartening to realise that the TUC is meeting my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer next Wednesday, and that on the agenda will be the question of action to be taken to achieve some broad understanding on prices and wage increases. The relations between the Government and the TUC, therefore, are in a far from critical state. I believe that the TUC needs to be more forthcoming. At present the TUC is thinking in terms of a £60 minimum wage—that would be an excellent idea—and a 30-hour week, but it is not offering the Government anything in exchange.
Some members of the TUC want price control but no form of wage increase control. Such a situation would rapidly lead to industrial chaos, unless there were some kind of moderating influence such as has been brought to bear by the Government. It is important that there should be no semblance of confrontation between the Government and the TUC. The partnership should continue and, in a Socialist

manner, achieve the best possible result for this country.
We have had ceaseless criticism of the Government's pay policy from both sides of the House. Many of those criticisms are justified. The Government's pay policy is far from ideal and it is having a few bad effects. For example, the rigid limits are making the keeping and recruiting of management in industry difficult. It is making it difficult to keep and recruit engineers and technicians and to attract new workers. Impaired differentials are resulting in a shortage of skilled labour throughout industry. That is even more serious than it sounds, because unskilled labour depends greatly on skilled labour. Therefore, it tends to increase unemployment.
Industry these days is talking about doing without a wages policy. It may be that the big companies could negotiate satisfactorily. However, I suggest that is only in their own interests. If they took the example of Ford and allowed massive wage increases, as occurred recently, such increases would go on their prices and be contrary to the national interest.
Many trade unions have already settled within the 5 per cent. limit. I am referring to moderate unions, such as the National Union of Hosiery and Knitwear Workers in my constituency. If, in compliance with Government policy, workers in one industry settled for about 5 per cent. and then saw the Government drop price controls and pay policy and let other industries do what they wish, they would consider that to be unfair and intolerable.
I expect that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary knows that there is widespread discontent with the Government's policy on wage control among many trade unions. I recently attended a meeting of the South Derbyshire branch of the National Union of Mineworkers. Representatives at that meeting said—in simple Midland terms—" We are sick of the Government's 5 per cent. wage limit." We must bear that in mind.
I agree with most hon. Members that the Government's incomes policy is in many ways unsatisfactory and full of anomalies and inadequacies. But I invite hon. Members on both sides of the House to consider the alternative. No doubt, the right hon. and learned Member


for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) will condemn the Government's policy, but I am absolutely certain that he will not offer any alternative. There is no alternative, except to apply some form of sanctions on excessive wage increases.
The right hon. Member for Lowestoft talked about the desirability of returning to free collective bargaining. He said that at the moment there was an imbalance in trade union power. Most Opposition Members know that if there were a return to free collective bargaining, trade unions with powerful bargaining power could enforce exorbitant wage increases. If trade unions are given power to enforce exorbitant wage increases, there will be increased income, wealth and standards of living for the strong and powerful at the cost of the weak. That is the very opposite of Socialist policy. I suggest that there is therefore no argument at present for discarding the Government's policy.

Mr. Litterick: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the way to help the weak is to make the strong weak?

Mr. Cronin: I cannot give a "Yes" or" No" to a question in such general terms.

Mr. Litterick: My hon. Friend put it that way himself.

Mr. Cronin: I suggest that the Government, by controlling the excessive bargaining power of strong unions, are helping those who have wholly inadequate wages. My hon. Friend knows that many people are so placed.

Mr. Litterick: My hon. Friend will have to prove that argument.

Mr. Cronin: I submit that the Government's policy is the only possible one and that it must be enforced. Unless there is a statutory form of wage control, which is quite impractical for obvious parliamentary reasons, sanctions or discriminatory action must continue. Otherwise, inflation will return on an absurd scale.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that there are many inadequacies in the Government's policy, but it has the support of the majority of the public.

Mr. Litterick: Who says so? Prove it.

Mr. Cronin: I do not wish to keep up a dialogue with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Litterick: Prove it. That is all I am asking my hon. Friend to do. He makes bland assertions about those who support the policy, yet gives us no evidence. One man's opinion is not proof.

Mr. Cronin: I should be the last person to suggest that one man's opinion could be taken as positive proof in this instance. I ask my hon. Friend to look at the public opinion polls. It is no use my hon. Friend laughing. These are the facts. Since it became clear that there was a clear-cut division between the Government and the Tory Party on wage policy, the public opinion polls have made it clear—much to the dismay of the Opposition—that the general public support the Government's policy and realise that it is the only alternative to a return to massive inflation.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: The hon. Gentleman is making a strong argument by his own standards for retention by the Government of a sanctions policy. Does he agree that, if so, it would be far better for that policy to be embodied in legislation so that justice would not only be done but would be seen to be done? Everyone would then know how he stood and how to adjust to the situation. The present policy is so secret that no one knows what the law is or what might happen.

Mr. Cronin: Legislation of that nature would be impractical with the present balance in the House. It would also be undesirable, because such action would be necessary for a short time only. What is the use of legislation to reinforce a policy which not only works satisfactorily but will inevitably be dropped, I should think, by the summer at the latest?
I suggest that there is an important dividing line here. Any of my hon. Friends who abstain, or vote with the Opposition, will certainly be handing over the working people they represent to an even more severe and reckless regime. How one votes tonight must be a heavy responsibility, even on those who hold strong feelings, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick). I believe that they have


a heavy responsibility to support the Government at this particularly critical time. I am confident that my right hon. Friends the Chief Secretary and the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection will work out with the Chancellor a better policy than we have at present. Some better policy must overtake the present one. But, until a better policy is found, we must support the present one because there is no practical alternative.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Henderson: The hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Cronin) must rest easy at nights if he has no concern about the effect of the sanctions policy or about positive and negative discrimination. It would be hard to imagine a more blatant abuse of Executive power than the way in which the sanctions policy has been adopted against industry. It is very easy for the hon. Gentleman to say "The Government can choose from whom they buy cars or to whom they give export credit." But the legislation was voted upon on the basis that people should get export credit if they satisfy certain criteria. We now have the ludicrous situation where the Government will have to pay more for cars because they will not buy them from the cheapest bidder.
I believe that this House is placing public servants in an extremely invidious position if we are asking them to carry out policies of this kind on ministerial fiat only. We do not have to look very far back, or very far away, to realise what happened in the United States when during the Nixon Administration there was a gross and blatant abuse of executive power. What is the next stage? Will the Chancellor now ask the inspectors of taxes to examine the personal tax affairs of managing directors if their companies fail to carry out the Government's policy? Where does this end when there is Executive abuse of sanctions?
My right hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) recently raised the matter of Ford with the Prime Minister, and asked:
 What legal or moral basis does the right hon. Gentleman have for taking these proceedings against the company?
The Prime Minister replied:
 I do not want to argue morality at the Dispatch Box. It is not a moral question."—

[Official Report, 28th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 216.]
I am sorry to say that I think it is a moral question in terms of the rights of people and the rule of law. If a Government get away with this kind of behaviour, there is no telling to what limits they might go. Labour Members below the Gangway who are agonising about what they should do tonight must remember that very often my own party and other parties—it must be remembered that there is more than one Opposition party—have to agonise about how they will vote on a particular issue. On this issue, I have no more confidence in those who sit on the Conservative Front Bench than I have in those who sit on the Government Front Bench. We must examine the terms of these motions and realise that at the end of the day Governments will respond only if they are actually defeated in this House.
One can have as many meetings as one likes, and one can get as many ministerial assurances as one likes, but if Labour Members want to stop this sanctions policy they must go into the Lobby and defeat it. We heard a very moving speech from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery), who is temporarily absent. I expected to hear the denouement that that was the logical conclusion of the arguments he presented, because if Labour Members do not vote down sanctions tonight the Government will say quite rightly that they now have a parliamentary majority for them and can, therefore, carry on with this policy. Therefore, whatever may be the consequences on another day—and I gather that the Government consider there may well be a consequence on another day—on this specific issue, those who are opposed to this policy have a duty to go into the Lobby and defeat it tonight.
I have listened to the debate with a great sense of dejá vu about incomes policies and what happens. We have had a succession of incomes policies, probably over the last 25 years. Every new Government who come into office seem to take up an incomes policy and within two or three years there is a cosmetic operation after which the incomes policy starts again.
I was naughty enough to look up the debate of 18th July 1974, headed "Pay


Board (Abolition) ". There the then Secretary of State for Employment, now the Leader of the House, said that the purpose of his order was
 to abolish the Pay Board and restore free, collective bargaining in this country ".
He added:
 One of the main objections I have always had to the system of the Pay Board and the whole method of the compulsory control of wages is that it takes many essential effective powers away from the House of Commons…and places those responsibilities in the hands of bureaucratic boards and bureaucratic bodies of one type or another."—[Official Report, 18th July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 693.]
That is a very queer denunciation of the policy which we are being asked to approve tonight. Let it be quite clear that, if there is a vote in favour of the Government, it will be claimed to be legislative approval for the sanctions policy and for its consequences.
I am not at all convinced that this policy will succeed for very much longer. Those of us who know the real situation outside know perfectly well that the whole system is riddled with anomalies. For example, we are told that there can be agreements for productivity. Yet those of us with rural constituencies know that in regard to farm workers, for example —I notice several Labour Members from rural constituencies—it is not possible to have a productivity deal for one farm worker on a farm. The average number of farm workers on a farm is now two or three. How does one have a productivity deal for them?
We know perfectly well that yet again the public sector has fallen behind in relation to the private sector. One of the most salutary things I did during the recess was to go round all the public service offices in my constituency, and the public servants at whatever level—manual and non-manual—told me that they feel they have been cheated. They said "Had this policy worked, the differential between our wages and those in the private sector would have been constant between 1975 and now, but instead a gap of between 25 per cent. and 30 per cent. has opened out." The Government will face a massive explosion of anger from the public sector within the next few months, if not weeks.

Mr. John Home Robertson: Does the hon.

Gentleman honestly believe that the kind of free-for-all about which the Conservative Opposition are talking will help the low-paid farm workers and the low-paid public sector employees to whom he has just referred?

Mr. Henderson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. It shows his concern for the low-paid farm worker, but the fact is that the low-paid farm worker will get very little out of this present policy. The farm worker is being held to 5 per cent., despite the fact that productivity in agriculture has been higher than in any other industry over the last 10 years. But the farm workers still have not had the benefit of that and are told by no less a person than the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food "I am sorry, you are stuck to the 5 per cent. policy, and unless you can work out some form of productivity deal you will get no more ".
I do not believe that the hon. Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is claiming that that is a right or fair policy. I hope that he will support some way in which the farm workers are recognised for the job that they do.
We should also consider the situation where there is competition for labour. In my constituency, there are a considerable number of incoming industries, in the building trade and in engineering, which, once in, set the rate for the job. They may think that someone should be paid £85 for a particular job. But a local firm which is already in existence, and whose rate is set at perhaps £70, is then caught under the pay policy. It cannot then compete with the incoming firm if it is to comply with the pay policy. Indeed, many company directors have told me "We shall see our business destroyed if we are held to this 5 per cent. policy, particularly with the threat of sanctions over our head."
There are then people with inbuilt protection. There are some groups and occupations which evade all pay policies—people such as architects, solicitors and quantity surveyors, who charge a fee related to the value of the project they do. That is an inbuilt protection against inflation if ever there was one. In industries such as engineering, where great technological change is taking place, people need


to be rewarded for additional skills required to operate new equipment. How is this to be done under the 5 per cent. policy? Conversely, it could be said that if people felt that it was a fair policy, they would look for fairness in the costs they have to meet.
In my constituency, the local authority is putting up house rents by well over 5 per cent., and the Scottish Special Housing Association is putting up rents by as much as 14 per cent. How can the Minister ask—perhaps he has a magic formula —those working on the shop floor to take 5 per cent. and be grateful for it? This problem is more severe in Scotland where costs are much higher than in any other part of Britain. Our industry has been more productive. The index of productivity of Scottish industry has been higher over the last seven years than in any other part of Britain, but family incomes have been consistently lower.
No London weighting allowance or special provision is available for people in Scotland. Scottish workers, unlike those in London, are not insulated by a weighting allowance. Many people in Scotland are beginning to feel that what is sauce for the London goose should be sauce for the Scottish gander.
The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), with whom I do not always agree, put his finger on an important point when he said that the Government and the Opposition are totally obsessed with wages as the source of inflation. We have heard virtually nothing else from hon. Members in this debate. In fact, one of the reasons why inflation has fallen has been the change in commodity prices and the change in the value of the pound.
An article by Dr. Graham Hallett, senior lecturer in economics at University College, Cardiff, in the July issue of Management Today showed that, since the 1973 and 1974 rise in commodity prices, there has been a far more balanced and stable situation.
The fall in the dollar has been a protection to the Government in terms of the value of the pound. Let us not get wages out of perspective. It would be a cruel irony if working people were to abide by this policy loyally and rigidly and still find that inflation had leaped out of control because of situations far beyond what

is relevant to them. This is what the Government may face in the next few months in relation to commodity prices. I should like to hear more from the Government and the Opposition Front Bench. We should not martyr ordinary working people on this policy. For goodness' sake, let us abolish sanctions tonight.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Robert J. Bradford: In response to the request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to be brief, I would like to make three points briefly. When my right hon. and hon. Friends read the Conservative Party economic policy, or at least some aspects of it, in the summer of this year, we were delighted to see the return to Tory policy in rejecting wage restraints and pay codes. One can imagine our disappointment when the Conservative Party did not enshrine what was a fundamental plank of its economic policy in its suggested amendment to the Loyal Address.
My right hon. and hon. Friends would have been impatient to join them in the Lobbies had the Conservatives had the insight and the courage to enshrine this fundamental plank of economic policy in that amendment on 9th November. However, better late than never. Tonight, we agree that the nonsense of wage restraint has to be rejected. My right hon. and hon. Friends will take the opportunity of doing that in the Lobby.
I want to make two further points. I want to illustrate why, in the context of the Northern Ireland situation, we reject this 5 per cent. policy on wage levels. It is clear that the Province has the invidious record of the lowest income in the whole of the United Kingdom. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) will probably argue that Northern Ireland and Scotland are on a par. The fact is that Northern Ireland shares two-thirds of the wage level of the United Kingdom. If wage restraint is persistently imposed, there will be no opportunity to close that gap.
We would do the Ulster people a great disservice if we supported the 5 per cent. level of wage restraint. We also believe that the sanctions which accompany this restraint are to the detriment of industry in Northern Ireland and hit large profitable companies such as Ford. I have a


Ford plant in my constituency. Why do we take the risk, through this wage restraint, of making a profitable company unprofitable, especially in the car industry, which is exposed to such extreme competition from countries such as Japan?
At the other end of the spectrum, we have companies such as Mackie's. Even when that company broke the phase 3 pay code last year, its wage levels were much lower than the norm in Northern Ireland. Even after breaking the pay policy in the last phase, Mackie's wage levels were still below those for any manufacturing industry in the Province. One wonders why Mackie's has resorted again to adherence to the pay policy. Why has it not the courage to continue to defy the pay policy in order to bring its wage levels up to the norm in Northern Ireland?
The answer is simple. The Government have obviously said that they will overlook last year so long as the company rigidly adheres to the policy this year. This ludicrous policy has not only run the risk of destroying a profitable company like Ford; it has also enabled companies such as Mackie's to hide behind the Government's skirts in failing to bring their wage levels up to the norm in Northern Ireland. This incomes policy hurts the lower income wage bracket.
I turn to the question of market forces. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that he favoured some kind of arbitration to achieve a realistic guideline for wage levels. I am not convinced that there are as many dangers as he imagines in free collective bargaining. I do not believe that we need to resort to that kind of arbitration in order to meet what might be nothing more than a bogyman.
If it is accepted that there are some inherent dangers in free collective bargaining—we on these Benches have been consistent in rejecting that proposition—it is possible to argue that market forces can offset some of those suspected dangers. When we talk of market forces, we must return to two or three fundamental considerations. In free collective bargaining, no trade union official with an ounce of sympathy for his members would demand a wage beyond what

the company could meet in the light of its profitability. Conversely, no industrial concern could be driven to meet a wage demand that it could not afford.
An important consideration in this tension and conflict is productivity. The wage levels and consumer prices of the Kingdom throughout phase 3 show that profits somehow helped to bear the brunt of inflation. So we have an interesting possible cycle, of productivity leading to good profits which in turn lead to the ability to offset inflation, with some in hand to increase investment so as to maintain an increase in productivity.
We have not spent enough time today examining the pressure of market forces as a factor in inflation. If the Chief Secretary can deal with that, it will be to the advantage of the debate.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. Tom Litterick: This debate is supposed to be about inflation, sub-titled "sanctions "and so on, but it would not be taking place if we had not had a slump which all the orthodox wise men said could never happen because we had mastered the cyclical nature of trade in a capitalist system. A long time ago, I read, in probably the most widely read standard economic text book in the capitalist world —Samuelson's "Economics "—that we have now learned to control these cycles. John Strachey wrote at great length in his book that the bourgeoisie, as he called them, had learned to control the cycles of boom and slump. Crosland did the same.
They were all seized with the strange notion that the days of boom and slump were over. They were all wrong. We mislead ourselves if we narrow this matter down to a disquisition about inflation and who caused it, forgetting that we are talking about the emergence from a slump—I think. I do not know whether we are going through a boom or going through the decline of a boom or going into a boom. Nowadays, booms are so short-lived that one has to be acute to notice them at all. The last one lasted about 20 months and had a devastating effect.
Listening to Conservative speakers tonight—I exempt the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson)—from the right hon.
Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) onwards, I was irresistibly reminded of the remark by the humorist Michael Frayn that the only strike that the English middle class would support was a lunchtime strike for a wage cut by trade union officials.
I wondered what the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) learnt from his time in office. He blethered on about "wage-cost inflation ". He said it at least half a dozen times and then solemnly advised the House that there could only be, in his phrase, "a political solution ". Such economic illiteracy is hard to credit in someone who held the offices that the right hon. Gentleman held. He evidently learned nothing.
In the 1970s alone, one would be hard put to discover even a brief period in which it could be said that wages played an important part in the inflationary pressure. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have nominated himself as the exception, but I think that everyone else in the House knew that the inflationary boom—all booms are bouts of inflation —was characterised by a massive, spectacular and almost unprecedented increase in commodity prices.
It was not just oil—that was just the topping off of the process, the last dramatic stage. The prices of such things as wheat, tin, zinc and copper more than doubled between 1971 and 1974. Some of them rose by as much as 300 per cent. Then came the famous explosion of oil prices.
The magnitude of that increase was no greater than the degree to which other commodity prices had increased in the previous two or three years. It was just the time scale and the political implications that were different—plus the novel fact that the oil States themselves could not spend the revenues. So the effect was significantly deflationary, like a huge tax impost on all the developed economies.
In addition, in the Northern Hemisphere economies in any case there was a massive increase in the quantity of money available. It was not just Anthony Barber who was daft: they were all daft simultaneously. The quantity of money was being multiplied year after year in all the developing economies of the so-called capitalist world. That was adding

further to the inflationary head that was building up. Labour was running like blazes to stay in the same place.
That kind of boom had to end, and it did so spectacularly, with the collapse of the property boom. At least in the British economy, much of the so-called investment of the time was not real investment. It was investment of the type that the then Leader of the Liberal Party went in for—fringe banks, playing around with "funny money ", borrowing short and lending long and disregarding the fact that interest rates were astronomical. That had to collapse. Not only did it collapse but the community was asked to bail out a significant section of the private banking system. We still do not know the true cost.
Those were the mechanics of that boom and slump. They had nothing to do with wages. Since then, the labour force has sought to catch up because of what happened in those years. It has been inhibited by successive years of wages policy because, sadly, my right hon. Friends are as obsessed as the Tories with the notion that inflation, as they will describe it, is caused by wage-cost push and by nothing else. They will make passing references to other possibilities, but in their behaviour they act as if wage costs were the sole cause of inflation and that if only they could control the movement of wage costs all their boom problems and their inflation problems would be over. Secretly, of course, they do not believe that. We know that they acknowledge in their behaviour the significance of the quantity of money. In a rather furtive way, they are operating a significantly restrictive monetary policy. Members on the Opposition Benches have not quite straightened out their policies. Time does not press for them as it does for my colleagues on the Government Front Bench.
I suppose that we must congratulate the Government on their political skill in having persuaded so many otherwise sensible people to support them and what is basically a nonsensical policy of wage restraint. Undoubtedly they have succeeded in doing that. They have persuaded a significant number of trade union general secretaries, who are otherwise normal sensible men. I suspect that at one stage of the game a number of trade unionists were terrorised out


of their wits by what the Treasury told them. In any event, the Government worked the trick. They persuaded the general secretaries, who in turn persuaded their members that their wages were the cause of inflation and that if only their wages could be controlled we would enter some sort of capitalist Valhalla. They told them that productivity would rise infinitely and wages would rise infinitely and there would be no problems.
There is no proof that we have a wages problem. However, there is much evidence that we have the lowest wages in Europe. That is why organisations such as Ford stay in the United Kingdom: it is worth their while to do so. In Britain they have the cheapest labour in Europe, but in addition they have a highly skilled labour force. That labour force has had to work with successive Governments who have been determined to ensure that organised labour cannot use its bargaining power. That acts as an insurance for companies such as Ford. They can continue to expect to get cheap labour indefinitely in Britain.
We in the Labour Party are being asked to sell that policy to the people. As everybody knows, the Labour Party does not support the Government's policy. It does not agree with any aspect of the Government's policy in this regard. We know that the TUC is virtually unanimously opposed to the Government's policy. Nevertheless, Government spokesmen say that they know that the majority of people support wage restrictions. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection advanced that rather sad and pathetic argument and I asked him how the Government knew that they had the support of the majority. All he could say in reply was that some Tory newspaper editor had told him so.
Early-Day Motion No. 101 is concerned with agricultural wages. It tells us that the Agricultural Wages Board has recently raised wages to a level that is lower than that quoted in the White Paper entitled "Winning the Battle Against Inflation ". The White Paper quoted £44·50p a week as the level beyond which the Government will not allow any flexibility. That is because it

would go beyond their 5 per cent. We know that there are many agricultural workers.
Early-Day Motion No. 45 refers to shop workers. They have been given a wage award that gives them less than the Government's magic £44·50. It is marginally less than that sum. They will not get any change out of any flexibility. That would seem to be so from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.
There is yet another Early-Day Motion on the same theme that refers to the bakery workers. Do my right hon. and hon. Friends seriously believe that the agricultural workers, who know how wage restraint policies are affecting them and their families, shop workers and bakery workers support their policy? Do they seriously believe that? How could sane men who have family responsibilities support such a policy? It merely guarantees that their standard of living will be cut. If they are restricted to the 5 per cent. policy and if the cost of living—we have been told confidently that it will increase —rises by between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent., we are guaranteeing to everybody who is obliged to adhere to the 5 per cent. policy that their standard of living will be cut, if only by 3 per cent. But it would be much more. Ordinary workers are already working at subsistence or lower than subsistence levels, and we are asking a great deal of them. On that basis alone my rt. hon. Friends are on shaky ground when they assert that every-everybody supports their policy. I think that they are more likely to agree with my attitude.
I support the Government. It is my intention to keep them in office for as long as possible. From my contact and conversations with them, members of my constituency party are of the same view. They support the Government. They wish the Government to remain in office until it is opportune for them to name a date for the General Election, when we shall win. It is as simple as that. That does not mean that they support this tatty policy.
For that reason, many people are prepared to wear the idea of a Member who has no truck with this type of policy going in the Lobby to support the Government. They, too, are prepared to be


expedient and to accept expediency in the name of a higher purpose. I do not expect everybody to accept that ideal, but I am sure that I make myself plain.

Mr. Home Robertson: There is widespread support for the Government's policy, surprising though that might seem to my hon. Friend. My presence in the Chamber is evidence of that. The Government have widespread support from low-paid workers and farm workers. If it were not for the support of farm workers, I should be sitting on the other side of the House. They support the Government's economic strategy. My hon. Friend falls into the same trap as many others of concentrating on the wages aspect of the policy. The support which the Government now have is based on the development of what we hope will be a Socialist policy which will cover wages and prices.

Mr. Litterick: My hon. Friend's interjection is predictable. It is time that he learnt the difference between the Labour Party and the Labour Government. I shall leave him with that thought. It is not an academic thought. I am tired of the Labour Party being discredited by Labour Governments. I shall leave that argument for another occasion and another place.
A small group of 26 of my constituents have been engaged in a wages dispute for more than three years. They are ideal Tory workers. They never say "Boo" to the proverbial goose. We never hear about them. They are dutiful and deferential. They are classic Tory workers.
Those workers became involved in a regrading exercise about three years ago. There was an institutionalised job evaluation scheme. It was decided that the 26 building workers should be upgraded. They engaged in procedure which validated that decision. But then the company said "No ". The 26 workers, through the Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians, bargained in the normal way. All the constitutional bargaining procedures were available to them, and they used them. However, they could not reach an agreement and, although the employers did not like it, the matter was taken to arbitration.
The decision from ACAS was favourable for the workers, but at that point

the company directors wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment telling him that a decision had emerged from ACAS which would result in an increase of more than was permitted under the pay policy. My right hon. Friend wrote back saying that he could not accept such an increase. Yet at the same time Ministers were blether-ing on about flexibility. This disagreement has been continuing for three years. There was the same hassle last year from the same group of workers. Last year they could not have more than 10 tier cent. There was no flexibility.
What will happen this year? Is the fabric of Christian civilisation to crumble if these 26 workers, who are employed by the huge Cadbury-Schweppes conglomerate in my constituency, are allowed to have their regrading, as has been agreed under the procedures available to them? Having been ideal employees, dutiful workers, and having obeyed every injunction and rule, they are nevertheless being put down. Are they to be put down yet again this year? Are they once again to be refused what their pay determination system has said they should have?
If these workers are not allowed the award made to them more than two years ago, it will be a sad day for the system. They have every good reason on their side. The company has every good reason to pay them. But it also has the means to frustrate the bargaining system. That means is the State. The company has learnt that all it has to do is to appeal directly to the Secretary of State for Employment, and the workers will be sunk. The Secretary of State will rule against an increase immediately if it is one iota beyond the 5 per cent. That is in flat contradiction to what is being said in the White Paper "Winning the Battle Against Inflation ". That White Paper talks about flexibility but in practice there is none. There should be.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Four hon. Members still desire to speak, but the clock moves on fast.

8.42 p.m.

Mr. Hal Miller: I shall do my best to comply


with your request, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I have important points to make, and having sat throughout the debate I feel entitled to make them.
There has been one half-hearted speech in support of the Government's policy from the Labour Back Benches. It is a little galling to be accused of putting party politics before principle and then to hear the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Mr. Litterick), who is apparently opposed to the policy, indicate that he intends to support it in the Lobby for political reasons.
We have not heard so far to what wage increases are to be related. I agree with the hon. Member for Selly Oak that wages increases by themselves are not necessarily inflationary, but I add the proviso that they should be accompanied by an increase in output. However, hon. Members below the Gangway have not yet come across with any suggestion that increases should be earned by increased production. Until we reach some understanding on that basis, we shall inevitably be left with some form of pay policy.
Let us consider the means by which the Government can enforce that policy. The Prime Minister said that where he considered something to be in the national interest he thought it right for the Government to use any means within their power. But I question whether some of the discretionary action that has been taken is within their power. I should like an unequivocal answer to the point from the Chief Secretary.
When I was in the position of exercising power I was always advised by my legal advisers in public administration that discretionary power could be exercised only for the purpose of the relevant orders under which it was granted, not to range over the whole field of Government policy. Many times have I been tempted to exercise discretionary powers in pursuit of some other end of Government policy, but I have always accepted that it had to be limited to the specific purpose for which that discretion was granted in that particular ordinance.
The purchasing considerations may be slightly different, but the value of public money is at stake none the less. The export credit, and the other grants, would seem to my mind to fall clearly outside

the realm of legitimate exercise of power. How is Government policy helping that increase in output which can alone pay for the increase in wages? The sad fact is that the Government policy has led to a lack of investment and to stagnant production, and has taken away all incentives from both management and men to remedy that situation. Until we can get out of this straitjacket, the Government policy envisages that we live in a static or a declining economy, and they are prescribing rules for how we ought to live in that kind of society.
I reject that analysis and therefore I reject the policy. I think that we need to have a dynamic policy, but the Government's whole effort up to now has operated entirely in the other direction. It is therefore no surprise that the index of industrial production has remained constant throughout their term of office.
I turn now to a brief examination of the Ford pay settlement and the effects of sanctions on that company, because they illustrate very well the point I am trying to make. To my mind they also show that the Government do not understand either what their policy is or what its effect will be. The Ford pay settlement has been declared—" decreed" would perhaps be a better word—by the Government to be outside the guidelines. I think that even the Government would agree that there is a fair amount of uncertainty as to the exact wording and meaning of the pay guidelines. Certainly it has not yet been possible to test their meaning in a court of law. However, assuming that the 'White Paper is intelligible and definitive as it stands, the Ford company believes that it has settled within the guidelines. How is that disagreement to be resolved? The Government have just declared that the Ford settlement is outside the guidelines and there is no means of testing that declaration.
On the other hand, the Ford company makes it plain that its pay settlement is designed to remedy the unofficial stoppages which, over the last year, cost the company £104 million. The company estimates the cost of the pay settlement to be about £48 million. Therefore, even if it is only half successful, the settlement will mean that its costs are more than covered. That would seem to me to be adequate proof that Ford is within the


lines of policy. In case there were any reservation on the part of the Government, Ford has given a categorical commitment that it will not include in its pricing any element for increases in labour costs above 5 per cent.
So how is Ford outside the Government's guidelines? The fact that the negotiations began on a different basis does not mean that their conclusion was outside the guidelines. Furthermore, how can the Government now determine that the Ford productivity scheme will not work when they have sanctioned other productivity schemes? There is grave doubt about the efficiency of such schemes and whether there is any monitoring of the productivity so gained. In the case of Ford, the company is penalised before the scheme has even got under way. Where is the justice, and where is the sense of comparability in that?
The company firmly believes that the settlement was within the guidelines. It admits that it had to increase the starting offer to 9·7 per cent. before the unions would even discuss productivity, but once the company got the productivity talks going it brought the settlement back within the total effect of the guidelines. Why should sanctions be imposed before the scheme has even started?
Play has been made of the fact that Ford is a large multinational company and is therefore probably immune to the withdrawal of Government purchasing, which might, anyhow, free vehicles to be sold at higher prices to private buyers. That analysis is much too facile.
The Government have created uncertainty in the mind of one of our most successful companies which is investing most in this country and producing the higher wages that Labour Members wish to see for union members. Uncertainty has been created about the effect of Government policy and the direction it is to take. There is, in particular, uncertainty about whether the Price Commission will be brought into play by the Government, with the threat of further sanctions.
The Government should accept that uncertainty is a grave deterrent to continuing investment by manufacturing enterprises. The motor industry is now a European industry and it is easy for Ford to switch production and investment to other parts of Europe. If it is led to

believe that the Government are creating a hostile climate towards investment, it will draw the obvious conclusion.
A senior member of the Ford board told me that at least the company in Britain could always say to Detroit before that, although there were problems of industrial relations and taxation in Britain, this was a country governed by the rule of law where firms knew where they stood. That no longer applies. Cannot the Government understand that that will have an effect on the company? If they do not, there is no hope for us until we get them out.
The Prime Minister said that Ford is only an example of the nation's dilemma and that people have to make up their minds whether they want prices kept down. The Government's record on keeping prices down, during heaven knows how many phases of pay policy, cannot be counted as a success by anyone. The reason is that the policy is entirely static. It contains no dynamic or incentive for the ordinary man to work harder.
I criticise the concept of productivity that has been applied, even by the Ford Motor Company. The overcoming of absenteeism or stoppages merely means that there has been a greater utilisation of capacity. It has not resulted in an improvement in the rate of work or output, which alone is the basis on which we can hope to compete with European countries. That is why the Government's policy is failing.
The people of this country expect us to resolve our differences and to get away from the acrid recital of history. We were taken back to the 1920s in the speech of one Labour Member earlier. For heaven's sake, we are about to try to live in the 1980s. We have to live together in this country.
I understand the feelings of certain Labour Members who believe that judges and the law in the past discriminated against workers. But why do those hon. Members want a statutory minimum wage? Why do they require so many employment laws to be passed? We must reach a consensus in these matters. It is no good blaming each other while the country goes to pot. We must get together and work it out. The people must have their choice, as the Prime Minister has said. If the Government


are not willing to bring in a statutory policy, they have to proceed in the other direction by means of free bargaining.
The difficulty is that in present circumstances bargaining is not free. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) suggested a secret ballot as a means of remedying the balance. I would go further than that. I believe—and this will come as a shock to Labour Members below the Gangway—that we need stronger unions. I wish to move towards a situation in which no benefits would be payable to unofficial strikers. I believe that once a union called a strike benefits could be paid out. But until that position is reached, I suggest that no benefits should be payable.
We must also move towards maintaining the differential between a person who is in employment and one who is out of work. I am trying to advance some constructive proposals to develop the consensus necessary to get this nation moving again. But, as the Prime Minister sayas, the people will have to make that choice. I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman would give us the chance.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: I am disappointed that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself has not been called. We wanted to show where we stand in respect of our proposal, which was designed to improve the original motion.
The Opposition's amendment is not designed to improve the motion. I feel that the prophecy of the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) will not come to pass, partly because of the experiences of the trade union movement following the Tory Industrial Relations Act. Trade union memories of that oppressive legislation are too long.
I am optimistic about the outcome of the General Election and about the continuation of the development of British Socialism. We certainly do not see that development happening now, but we need to develop that concept if we are to bring about the partnership in industry of which the hon. Member for Bromsgrove and Redditch spoke.
There is no time to dwell on the matter of Labour movement policy running counter to Government's policy. The

policy of the Labour movement clearly spells out the terms under which inflation can be successfully fought on the basis of the major decisions of the TUC, which is the bedrock of the British Labour movement, and of its political arm, the Labour Party. Sooner or later, the Government must get down to the brass tacks of accommodating that policy and of realigning themselves with the trade union movement. I hope that next week that process will recommence.
I hope that we shall implement the understanding that was achieved between 1970 and 1974 when the Labour Party was in Opposition. In that period we were all Socialists, and when in Opposition one achieves Socialist unity. But when the Labour Government are in power, many of our colleagues tend to veer away from Socialist aspirations. However, we live in hope about future developments.
I shall not spend too much time dealing with the alternative strategy. However, my colleagues and I do not just moan about the Government—we spell out alternative proposals. I am a sponsored member of the TGWU, I am a London Member, I have many friends in the Ford establishment and constituents in the Ford plant at Langley. Therefore, I followed the dispute with a great deal of interest. It was never on from the word "go ", bearing in mind the background of the TUC, the Labour Party conference and other events. It is the TUC first and the Labour Party second, as we all should know from the messages of history.
That should be remembered by the right hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice), who was sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union and who owes his presence in politics to substantial backing from that union. I do not dwell on his speech, but it does not make sense to have a 5 per cent. norm plucked out of the air when the previous norm of 10 per cent.-plus was supposed to be overcoming inflation. It does not make sense, particularly in the light of doubling of Ford profits.
German workers say that British labour is much too cheap and the Germans fear the extension of investment in Britain as a result of that. That has far more to do with the establishment of a modern Ford plant in South Wales than with special favours to the Prime Minister.
If sanctions are invoked, it will be very serious. The figures that have been elicited by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cath-cart (Mr. Taylor) show that Government orders placed with Ford are substantial. That is why the TGWU general secretary last week wrote to the chairman of the TGWU group in this place—it is the largest of the trade union groups here—and reminded him that the policy of sanctions must inevitably injure union members in the Ford plant. We will not have it. It is not realistic. However, accommodation with the trade union movement is realistic and I wish my friends the greatest joy when they meet in the middle of next week.

9.2 p.m.

Sir Geoffrey Howe: I begin by responding to one point that was made by the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) and which was touched upon by other hon. Members. I make it absolutely clear that the Opposition amendment underlines our total commitment to the need to conquer inflation in this country. It also underlines the basis upon which the Opposition are united in the approach to that problem.
Labour Members have often cited the document that we published last year" The Right Approach to the Economy ". Our policy is set out in that document. It was reaffirmed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) this afternoon, and in the Queen's Speech debate early last month by the Leader of the Opposition.
The irony of it, and perhaps a hopeful feature, is that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer last summer and in the summer of 1977 were seeking to achieve the same results by some of the same measures. We all start by emphasising the central importance of monetary policy. We all go on to assert that if monetary policy is being brought under control and the rate of expansion is gradually coming down, then the average total pay bill of the nation must come in line with that. Otherwise, employees will be priced out of their jobs, investment will be priced out of existence and firms will be driven into bankruptcy. There is a need for alignment between pay movements in general and monetary policies.
That average movement of pay cannot emerge as a single figure. It can only emerge in practice as a result of a myriad of arguments and agreements in the market place. On both sides of the House—and, indeed, in Down, South as well—

Mr. Powell: Yes, we are all right so far.

Sir G. Howe: —we were all agreed that we were setting out on an orderly return to normal collective bargaining. That return must be responsible, because those who are taking part in the process must recognise the responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. It must have regard to the realities of the bargains that are being struck, and it must be founded upon a proper balance between the power of those bargaining on each side of the market place.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Prentice) drew attention to the way in which the CBI has been spelling out in its policy document how we should be moving back in that direction. The Government must recognise that in so far as they have been seeking to go in that direction they have not received stronger support than they have received from the Conservative Party. I hope that tonight we shall hear from the Chief Secretary no more nonsense about the position that we adopt and that we seek to get the Government to adopt.
The Leader of the Liberal Party asserted a different point of view. Faithful to the gospel according to North Cornwall, he asserted his party's continued commitment to a statutory policy. I believe that the great majority of hon. Members on both sides of the House, certainly those who have had experience of Government or have been near to it, have now reached the view that it is not in the end possible or right to try to achieve the answer for which the right hon. Gentleman looks by Government control, even if that control is imposed by statute. Those of us who have sat in various pay committees of various Governments wrestling with the differences that must be struck between this and that interest group find ourselves driven to the conclusion, as the House was in 1968–69 and again in 1973–74, that that approach is not on. Therefore, I part company with the right hon. Gentleman there.
However, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that if the Government are seeking to control pay, or if they are not but are seeking, as the present Government are, to intervene sporadically and unpredictably in the labour market, that should be done only upon a basis that is lawful, credible and above all evenhanded. It is because none of those things is true that we have criticised the Government tonight.
However one looks at the matter, therefore, there is no justification for the approach now being adopted by the Government. It does not work, because it cannot. Above all, it is essentially and irretrievably unjust.
First, the policy is indefensible to those who conduct bargaining on either side of the market place and to the country at large. Nobody on the Government side any longer really believes in it. When we look back at what happened in the last pay round we see that the policy was asserted as a 10 per cent. policy. The average outtum was 14 per cent. according to one calculation and 16 per cent. according to another. In the present pay round, with 5 per cent. asserted as the policy, that policy is already being destroyed by the exceptions that the Government have created and are continuing to license.
We see, for example, that in one of the paragraphs of the obscure text by which Ministers are guided in these matters provision is made for special cases to be considered by the people on the Government's undisclosed pay board. In the Financial Times of 25th November, it was reported that the number of British workers already demanding special exemptions under that paragraph had risen to about 1½ million workers in the first quarter of the present round—ambulance men, plumbers, heating and ventilating contractors, nurses, BBC employees, British Waterways Board employees, provincial journalists, farm workers, white collar civil servants—all of them seeking to take advantage of an exception which begins by driving a coach and horses through the 5 per cent. pay policy.
The activities of the wages councils cause immense bewilderment to employers who are trying to observe what they see left of the 5 per cent. policy.

This summer, the Unlicensed Places of Refreshment Wages Council awarded increases of between 16 per cent. and 32·9 per cent. The Retail Bookselling and Stationery Trades Wages Council awarded increases of between 20 per cent. and 22 per cent. The Retail Bread and Flour Confectionery Wages Council awarded increases of 25 per cent. There we have a second group of licensed loopholes in the increasingly incredible 5 per cent. policy.
The third group consists of those who were mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft, the applications under schedule 11 which are going through—150 of them last year and almost 500 in the current year. As has been shown, about half of those are probably collusive, connived at by both employer and employee as a means of getting round the 5 per cent. policy and, what is more, connived at by the Secretary of State for Employment himself. As I understand it, he has described the schedule 11 exceptions as a very useful safety valve during a period of pay policy. Yet we hear the Chief Secretary trumpeting from time to time to the effect that the Government will certainly not turn a blind eye to this and that they will not stand by idly while it goes on. They do not stand by idly. They design and operate loopholes to allow the policy to be ignored.
Then we have the greatest exception of them all,the SFPDs, as they are known—the self-financing productivity deals—about which some astonishing comments have been made by people in all parts of the Labour Party. We have had several Government supporters today proclaiming their membership of ASTMS, and I do not hold that against them. But, since the beginning of August of this year, the general secretary of ASTMS has been following the orders which he gave his union at that time:
 Keep all wage deals secret. Don't let them know. Go for your self-financing productivity deals, but absolute discretion should be maintained, with no publicity and, above all, no contact with the Department of Employment.
So the policy ceases to be policed in that.
Then we find one of the national officials of the Transport and General Workers' Union, Mr. John Miller, admitting only four or five weeks ago in a television programme that most of the earlier


productivity deals which he had negotiated were phoney.
If one looks for a specific example, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore) has obtained the figures about what has happened in the much-vaunted productivity bargaining in the National Coal Board. Between the first half of 1977–78 and the first half of 1978–79, when the great productivity agreement went through, output of coal per underground worker went up by 1·6 per cent., whereas average wages per employee went up by 24 per cent. So we see the reality of this policy, and we must ask whether any Government supporter any longer believes in this policy and whether even the Prime Minister himself does.
Against that background, it is no wonder that Ford is the only case which so far has been wheeled before the Great British public for denunciation. We are witnessing what someone has described as the operation of the law of increasing marginal futility, and the Government are defending a Maginot line of mythology. It is incredible.
Beyond that, it is grotesquely unjust. My hon. Friend the Member for Broms-grove and Redditch (Mr. Miller) described very fully what has happened in Ford, and it is worth examining that as one example of it. As we all know, Ford paid more than 5 per cent. Was it because the company passionately wanted to, because it was determined to reduce its profits, because it was profoundly committed to the cause of spitting in the eye of the Government and overthrowing their pay policy, or because it was committed to exercising its own strength and was lusting to give away more money than it intended originally? That is absolute nonsense. In the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), we are living in cloud cuckoo land if we think that is the reality.
Ford paid the amount that it did at the end of the day because it was obliged to by the exercise of trade union power —trade union power, incidentally, probably provoked by the existence of the guidelines to press beyond 5 per cent. at all costs. That was the one thing that the unions were determined to do. They had declared in advance their intention to do so.
Why in those circumstances should Ford be subjected to punishment for what it was obliged to do in those circumstances, and punishment of a most extraordinary kind? I take just one example of the many elicited by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit). He asked how widely extended the Government's policy of sanctions was in relation to Ford, and on the 1st of this month the Chief Secretary said:
 The Government's decision is not to place further contracts for Ford products, without regard to where they are made."—[Official Report, 1st December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 418]
So that Ford vehicles coming from the factories of Belgium and Germany or anywhere else round the world are equally subject to the sanctions policy. How can anyone suggest that that is a just or a sensible policy?
The Prime Minister may not remember what he said at the time of the last Ford settlement in the autumn of 1977, when he was congratulating himself and Ford on a decision to place a Ford plant near his own constituency. He said this:
 Ford have shown confidence in Britain. In return we must do all we can to justify that confidence.
He should be ashamed of himself.
The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, at one point in his somewhat discursive speech this afternoon, said that the Opposition had taken up the cudgels in these matters only on behalf of Ford, and that it was only when a big company came along that we became interested. Ford is the only company that has been dealt with in this pay round. But has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten the two debates we had earlier this year in which, when the Ford settlement had been accepted, we were championing the lb hundreds of smaller employers who had been treated just as unfairly?
This week, since this debate was first advertised, we find an even more curious and disturbing example. The British Exhibition Contractors Association has been subjected to sanctions, so we now know. What has it done? That association arrived at a settlement, as I understand it, of 10 per cent. It was then subjected to strike action at the peak of the period when the Motor Show was being put together and had no option but


to settle for a figure which is said by the Department of Employment to be 11·8 per cent. What was it to do? The Ford stand at the Motor Show had already been struck. Was the association to resist the strike and make sure that no other stand was on display at all? What option did it have? But the Government, once again, with grotesque injustice, brought their sanctions to bear on an employer instead of anybody else.
What can the association do now? It is told that it must renegotiate the agreements, agreements which are binding not just on the 170 firms which are members of the association but on many others which are bound by the same pay scales. What good does it do the Government in their counter-inflation policy? All Government contracts for exhibition work are met by competitive tender anyway—they go to the lowest bidder. Yet the Government have withdrawn altogether from that market. About one-third of those firms depend on Government business for survival. What is to happen to them?
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mrs. Oppenheim) has given me details of a firm in her constituency which tendered for the Royal Navy stand at the Boat Show. which is to take place in a few weeks' time. That firm was desperate for work and it deliberately submitted a tender at a very low price with a very modest profit margin in order to get it. The firm was telephoned by the Royal Navy spokesman and told that its contract price was the lowest and that it would get the work but that he was waiting for the go-ahead. Ten days later —yesterday, indeed—the Royal Navy spokesman rang again and said that he could not place the contract with that firm after all and gave no explanation whatsoever.
There will, therefore, be no Royal Navy stand by the firm at the Boat Show and in Gloucester the firm will have its employment jeopardised. One is not surprised that the Government gave no explanation of what was going on.
The matter goes a great deal further than that. As I understand it, the Government, having withdrawn their custom from British firms in this business, are now deliberately inviting and receiv-

ing applications from foreign firms. One firm received from the Department tender forms for exhibition construction in Bahrein and Cologne. That firm has been asked to return those tender forms because the Government will no longer go to it. The Department of Trade stand at the Paris exhibition was tendered for by a British firm which was told that it had submitted the lowest tender. The contract was withdrawn from that firm and has now gone to a French firm.
So far, new applicants for the list of tenderers with the Department of Trade include two Italian firms, and three German firms are applying to be on the Department's list. This is not the economics of a counter-inflation policy. It is the economics of a self-destructive madhouse.
The policy of the Government is unfair and unjust because it misses, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft pointed out, the central problem. These problems are not with us because employers are lusting to give their money away, or because they are so overcome with a surfeit of power. They are happening because the scales of collective bargaining are hopelessly tilted in the other direction to an extent which is quite unjustifiable.
The Prime Minister himself, in a speech to the Labour Party conference, said quite candidly that
 society today is so organised that every individual group almost has the power to disrupt it. How is their power to be channelled into constructive channels? 
What have the present Government done about it, save to do everything possible to strengthen the hand of the militants and channel it into unconstructive channels?
The problem remains; and, indeed, it is getting worse. This House of Commons will be failing in its duty if we do not begin to speak up not just for the commuters and hospital patients and those who are affected by increasingly disruptive action but for the ordinary workers themselves, who have a great deal more common sense in these bargaining situations than some of their leadership will acknowledge.
Labour Members know that we must begin to restore the balance of power in the direction of workers of common sense. Would that they had as much courage in these matters as the general secretary of


the Union of Post Office Workers. Is it not time for those who agree with him to say so?
" Democracy" is seldom absent from the lips of Labour Members, particularly those below the Gangway. But we had a very curious observation from the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) this afternoon. He denounced my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft and said that my right hon. Friend would like to have ballot after ballot after ballot and take away any power that the shop stewards might have. What kind of view of democracy is that?
The other day, the newly-elected general secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, Mr. Terry Duffy, said in terms—and much to his credit—that in his view each worker who is invited to take part in industrial action should have a right to take part in a ballot to decide whether he did. If that argument is being advanced by a union which sponsors some of the Members on the Labour Benches, is it not time that we began to hear that argument being supported from the Government Front Bench?

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the position is getting worse. There are grounds for agreeing with him about that. But he said that he was in favour of "realistic and responsible" free collective bargaining. What is the difference between that and free collective bargaining? What would he advise the Government to do if they were of the opinion that the bargaining was not realistic and responsible?

Sir G. Howe: The Government must do what the present Government set out to do in the summer of 1977. What Liberal Members do not understand—but which is the lesson learned by members of Governments of both parties—is that it simply is not possible, for an extended period, for a Government to regulate these things by statutory or other intervention. We must return to responsible collective bargaining—

Mr. Hooson: What if we do not have it?

Sir G. Howe: It will be a long and painful road to travel. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The Lord President may laugh as he likes now, but that was the under-

standing which he had when he was elected to office in 1974. It was the understanding on which hon. Members were elected to office. They have not allowed us to move in that direction.
In the real world in which we live, the balance of power is as it is. Sanctions against employers are exactly the opposite of what is needed.
Beyond that injustice, the point made by hon. Members on both sides of the House is that these sanctions are arbitrary and haphazard in the worst possible sense of the words. There is no pretence by the Government that these sanctions are now being applied in any consistent way. During the last round, the nationalised industries were invited to apply them. Now they are merely invited to take account of them. They have disappeared from that field. The Chief Secretary was saying, until a few weeks ago, that local authorities would be applying them, but it has now been concluded by the Government that it is not appropriate for them to be applied. With central Government, from month to month they become increasingly haphazard.
Last year Ford was not subjected to sanctions, because, as the Chancellor told us last year:
 As the Government have previously made clear, we regret the Ford settlement: but after consideration it has been decided that there is no discretionary action which would be appropriate in this case."—[Official Report, 1st December 1977; Vol. 940, c. 322.]
Why was action not appropriate last year when this year all sorts of actions are appropriate?
How can anyone possibly see any sense in that? How can it be justified that the sanctions should he imposed this time after a secret court, where no reasons are given, and from which there is no appeal—a kangaroo court, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-East said—and where the Government embark upon the public humiliation of one of Britain's most successful industrial leaders? It is a disgraceful approach.
It might be possible to bear that with fortitude if everybody was being treated similarly, but what do we find? It was reported last week that the Transport and General Workers' Union has decided to award pay increases to its officials to the tune of 23 per cent. What are the


Government doing about that? A national officer of the union is quoted as saying:
 I doubt if the Government will apply sanctions against us…How do you take sanctions against a trade union? We are more likely to impose sanctions on them.
What about the Labour Party at Transport House—that thriving hive of industry on which the nation depends? It has awarded pay increases to its employees to the tune of 12½per cent. Is there a breath of sanctions there? Has the Prime Minister decided to withdraw his Cabinet colleagues from meetings of the national executive committee or to take any courageous action of that kind?
Then we come to the news that the TUC has awarded increases to its own employees at the annual rate of 20 per cent., but once again we find that the Government regard it as not appropriate to impose sanctions. One wonders why.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ching-ford elicited earlier this month the information that the TUC is receiving very substantial discretionary sums of money from the Government. From the Department of Education and Science, for the education and training of trade unionists, it is receiving £1 million. From the Ministry of Overseas Development, for the training of overseas trade unionists, it is receiving £75,000. From the Treasury, for
 communicating the Government's industrial strategy "—[Official Report, 4th December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 510.]
it is receiving £50,000.
The Chief Secretary was asked why the Government were not imposing sanctions, and this is what he told my hon. Friend:
 The only payments to the TUC which the Government could legally withhold are small amounts of money which the TUC receives to run courses for overseas trade unionists as part of the aid programme, and to communicate the industrial strategy. The main effect of withholding these payments would be to affect adversely the aid programme and the industrial strategy. I do not think that it would be in the national interest to do either."—[Official Report, 12th December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 146.]
Yet the Government withdraw from Department of Trade exhibitions and overseas exhibitions. They withdraw their custom for the best vehicles for the Ministry of Defence.
Even in regard to the aid programme, as I heard two days ago, the Government have been issuing instructions to the Ministry of Overseas Development that tenders should no longer go out for Ford tractors for aid programmes overseas. If we can believe this we can believe anything.
The Prime Minister was asked in the House of Commons on 30th November why he was not imposing sanctions against the TUC. In his bluff, openhearted manner, he said that it was a matter of common sense that they ought not to do so.
The truth is that the Prime Minister and his colleagues are so beholden to the TUC that they dare not do so. So far from its being a matter of common sense, it is a matter of uncommon nonsense, and the House knows it.
Discretion of this kind, that the Secretary of State was claiming the right to exercise, is another word for arbitrariness. It means that we are living in a society in which 100 people can commit the same entirely lawful act and then find that only one or two of them are subject to punishment from which there is no appeal. We see the Government moving through this jungle with increasing certainty.
At the very heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's empire, the Bank of England announced this week that for the first time in 300 years its staff had decided to work to rule, whatever that may mean in that august institution. A pay settlement has been accepted from the Bank of England that is entirely in line with that awarded to employees of the London clearing banks. The London clearing banks' settlement on those terms was granted approval by the Department of Employment, but the Bank of England settlement, on exactly the same terms, has to be cleared not by the Department of Employment but by the Treasury, over which the Chancellor of the Exchequer presides. What happened? The secretary of the staff association was told that the matter had been referred for further consideration but that certainly it was in breach of the Government's pay policy. Neither Department will explain to him the reasons behind it. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment has refused to see him.
Looking at the Government's pay policy code, which has now been published, we find there stated:
 It is important not to circumscribe Ministers' discretion in dealing with cases…This is important in order to preserve Ministers' ability to distinguish between cases on grounds which may not yet be foreseen.
That is the uncertainty to which we have been reduced in this respect. This policy has been reduced to a disreputable and discredited farce. It is high time that the House of Commons put it to death.
I remind the Prime Minister of the most important reason for that. On 28th May 1968–1968 was a memorable period in the Prime Minister's life—speaking with all the authority of an ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, he said:
 This is a field in which the Government can get acceptance for a short run policy but does not have the expertise to secure fundamental changes nor the power to make its policy effective in the long run…there is no prospect of success in the long run so long as the solution is imposed from above…By the autumn of 1969 when the current powers expire, we shall have had legislation concerned with wages for 3½ years. That is long enough.
That was a matter of earnest discussion in the Labour Cabinet at that time.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): What would the right hon. and learned Gentleman do?

Sir G. Howe: If the Prime Minister had done me the courtesy of being here at the outset of my speech, he would have heard me say what I would do. We want no more lectures about the policy of the Conservative Party. It is time for the Prime Minister to face the reality of his own conditions. He is trying to maintain a policy on which his party and Government are split asunder from top to bottom. He is trying to maintain a policy which has been rejected by his paymasters in the Trades Union Congress. He is trying to maintain a policy which has not merely been rejected by the Labour Party conference, but that conference, by 4 million votes to 2 million votes, has called on the Labour Party to organise a campaign against the policy for which the Government are seeking the approval of the House.
This afternoon the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection asked us for a plainer example of the triumph

of tactics over principle. Let him look at his own motion and he will see that the Government dare not even invite the support of the House for their policy. The right hon. Gentleman knows that if he tried to do that, he would lose the motion. Let Labour Members have the courage to sustain the campaign to which their party is committeed by supporting the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft.

9.33 p.m.

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury(Mr. Joel Barnett): If one wanted to sum up what has just been said by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), basically it would be that he agrees with the Government's motion and policy of reducing inflation but does not like the way that we are doing it and is not sure—indeed, has not the faintest idea—how he would propose to reduce it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he answered my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister earlier. He said that the answer would be "a long and painful process ". That was his answer. But we know what his answer is. We have had his so-called alternative in the past. It is interesting that the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not mention it tonight. I can understand that. My hon. Friends were right to point out that the right hon. and learned Gentleman's alternative would be a recipe for mass bankruptices and a massive increase in unemployment.
I turn now to some of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's criticisms, taking some of his epithets in turn. First, we were told—in the past, not in this debate today—that our policy 'was tyrannical and all the rest of it. That is not in the amendment either. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us tonight, as did many Opposition Members, that it was against the rule of law. Let us consider the various sanction policies and see whether they are against the rule of law.
First, on the question of purchasing contracts, Ford is free to sell to the Government and the Government are free to buy, subject to the right to cancel. Ford agreed to abide by the conditions in the White Paper. That is a tyrannical use of the discretion available to the Government—or so we are told by the right hon.


and learned Gentleman. The Government are exercising their proper discretion and freedom to buy, as any buyer can. Incidentally, we made it clear from 1975 onwards that we would have regard to all the factors, including the public interest. This is called "tyrannical ", but it is being done in France and now it is to be done in the United States as well.
We are also told that it is tyrannical to withhold selective grants. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is the worst one."] I am interested to hear hon. Members say that. The discretionary power in relation to selective grants was given to the Government, in the infinite wisdom of the then Conservative Government, in the Industry Act 1972, by which the Secretary of State was given the power to give such grants if it was" in the national interest ". That is stated in section 8 of the Act. We are told that that is not what was intended, but the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a Minister in the Department at the time, and it is pretty slap-happy legislation if he did not intend us to use it in respect of the national interest. What did he intend us to use it for? What does he mean by "national interest" if it does not mean to try to keep down the rate of inflation?
Then we are told that it is "arbitrary" to have a proper use of the discretionary power sensibly given to Governments by a Conservative Government in this case —a Government who did not want any Government to have rigid, inflexible powers with no room for manoeuvre. Therefore, they properly and perfectly sensibly wrote into the Act the discretionary power available to the Government to use in the national interest. That is precisely what the Act said.
As the House knows very well, in many Acts that we pass the word "may" is inserted—rather than "shall "—so that the Minister will have discretion and not be inflexible and rigid in the policy. But because we are using that discretion, the Conservative Opposition now tell us we are being rigid.

Mr. Tebbit: Mr. Tebbit rose—

Mr. Barnett: I intend to use my discretionary power in this instance. In this case it is a very limited power, although I hope a useful one, to keep out the hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Barnett: We are told that the Conservative Opposition are desperately keen about small firms, yet we have had debates on sanctions on only two occasions—the first in relation to Sun Alliance and the second in relation to Ford. That is their concern for small firms. Those are the times when we have had sanctions debates. It shows that the Opposition's language about tyrannical and arbitrary power is nonsense. Then they turn to the question of secrecy. We are told that this is secret policy. Well, the Conservative Opposition seem to know enough about it to be able to describe it pretty graphically, although more than a little inaccurately. But where is the secrecy? We have described our powers in White Papers.

Mr. Budgen: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Barnett: I shall not, because a few minutes of my time was taken at the discretion of the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East.
We have set out the powers in White Papers and have discussed them with the firms. The public and Parliament know what they are. The only secrecy is the names. The Government are perfectly willing to publish the names of firms which are subject to sanctions. Some names are published with no explicit consent from us, but, because this is a commercial matter between the Government and the firm concerned, we have said that we shall publish if the firms agree. So far, only one firm has agreed that we should publish.
Are the Conservative Opposition asking us arbitrarily, whether or not the firms agree, to publish the names of the firms? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer ".] Frankly, the charges which they level are ludicrous, and the only cause of this debate was Ford. We are told that we are punishing the wrong firm for a whole variety of reasons that were given by a number of hon. Gentlemen, including the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East.
An editorial in the London Evening News, not normally a newspaper that


supports this Government, said, on 28th November:
It is also obvious that a lot of Ford's friends are impressed by Sir Terence Beckett's plea of mitigation. Namely, that the 17 per cent. settlement is not damaging.
The editorial goes on to say:
 This is a resourceful argument: it is also a specious one. For, as Sir Terence knows perfectly well, it is not what happens at Ford that matters so much as what is likely to happen elsewhere as a result of the Ford deal. Ford has set the pace.
It goes on:
The pace Ford has set is frankly impossible. In this sense, Sir Terence and his colleagues have trampled the national interest underfoot.

Mr. Michael Latham: Mr. Michael Latham rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Barnett: As I was saying, Sir Terence was accused of trampling the national interest underfoot. I would not personally accuse Sir Terence of trampling the national interest underfoot, but I have no doubt whatever that the antics of the Opposition show a total disregard for the national interest. They are prepared to trample it underfoot for their own narrow party interest. Of that I have no doubt whatever.
The Conservatives are wrong anyway. It is not even in their party interest. The Opposition know, in the words of the London Evening News, that the pace Ford has set is impossible. They know it, if they want to be the least bit responsible. Indeed, Ford poses the central problem which was recognised by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Anyone who wants to look seriously at the problem of how we deal with the central issue of winning the battle against inflation knows that the question is, if one stands by and allows one company to get 17 per cent. or more, what does one say to the others? This is the central problem that any Government face.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouch rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not bound to give way.

Mr. Barnett: It is well known in this House that I give way probably more than most Ministers or most hon. Members, but I will not do so now. I want

to consider, if I may, in this reasonably quiet House, the Government's incomes policy and the alternatives open to them.
The Government have stated guidelines which are by no means rigid. There is room to go beyond 5 per cent. There is more for the low paid in certain instances, and there are some special cases. There is also room for genuine self-financing productivity deals.
We are told that the Opposition do not like rigid norms. We were told on a previous occasion that the Leader of the Opposition does not like the four-letter word norm ". She said on ITN on 10th October:
 I don't think I could tell them any specific level "—
no figure whatever, no guidance. The right hon. Lady, speaking to the faithful at Brighton, said:
 Responsibility can't be defined by the Government setting a fixed percentage for everyone, because the circumstances are different in every concern in the country, whether nationalised or free.
That is very interesting. What is interesting is that at Penistone in June the right hon. Lady said:
 There will be no free collective bargaining in the public sector.
I am not sure what policy there will be. There will be no guidelines, no specific figures, no free collective bargaining. What on earth will there be? Perhaps she will tell us some time.
I will tell her. The right hon. Lady is sitting between two right hon. Members—the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) and the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East—who, although they do not like her to notice it too often, have told us and her; perhaps sotto voce, that they are in favour of trying to achieve a 5 per cent. outturn in pay. They have said that. In all the speeches and interviews that the right hon. Lady gives, she has never been prepared to allow a figure to be dragged out of her in any circumstances.

Mrs. Margaret Thatcher: Quite right.

Mr. Barnett: She says that that is quite right. It is interesting that her two colleagues have had a figure dragged out of them. They recognise that the aim should be a 5 per cent. outtum. How will that be


achieved? We are told that the answer is that one explains it to people. What—without giving them a figure? What is one to explain? This is a fascinating policy.
The difference between the Opposition and us is that the Government are prepared to spell out a policy, to say that it is 5 per cent, that we want to achieve. What the Opposition want is a rigid 5 per cent. average.

Mr. Prior: Perhaps I can help the right hon. Gentleman by quoting from a letter from the Chancellor of the Exchequer to me, dated 10th August 1977. Speaking of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), he said:
 He went on to suggest that there needed to be an understanding about the total increase in pay that the economy could afford, but that it would be unthinkable to translate that into an individual flat rate figure. I share this view, as you know.

Mr. Barnett: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right; what I want to know is which of the three Opposition Members is right.
There is a central problem facing this country. How do we deal with the problem of inflation? Pay is not the only issue, but it is the heart of the problem of how we get inflation down. The Opposition have not been prepared to face up to it. I know that the right hon. Member for Lowestoft is embarrassed because he has upset the right hon. Lady by mentioning that terrible figure of 5 per cent.
The case for the sanctions is the case for the Government to use every legal power which is available in what is agreed to be the national interest. Of course, there will be some anomalies, some differentials and some unfairness. But neither free collective bargaining nor incomes policy has over many years ever created fairness of a distribution of income.
However, without a moderate outtum now, if the Government were to abdicate their responsibilities, unfairness would be piled on unfairness, the anomalies and differentials would remain, others would be added, and on top of it all would be the ultimate unfairness of renewed inflation.
That is what would happen under the proposals of the Opposition.
How are we to avoid the upsurge in inflation and bring it down even further, which is the central problem?
 There are no quick cures or easy solutions.
I am reading from "The Right Approach ", so I assume that it is right. But if there is no quick cure in the longer term, there will certainly—[HON. MEMBERS: "Read on."] I intend to read on. given time. If there is no quick cure for the problems of inflation in the longer term, it will be no easier if there is an upturn in the rate of inflation. I hope that we can agree on that. We shall not solve the problems by using the extravagant language that we hear from the Opposition Front Bench.
I willingly concede that the Government are not wedded to sanctions as a permanent solution to what is an intractable problem. I welcome the renewed discussions that we shall be having with the TUC. Those discussions will be starting on Tuesday. They will not be concerned only with pay; they will cover the whole range of economic and social policy. We can expect that the TUC will put forward constructive proposals, which is a great deal more than we can expect from the Opposition.
I turn my attention to the alternatives that are available to any Government, some of which have been put forward from time to time by the Opposition. There is the alternative of a truly rigid, full-blown statutory policy. Perhaps I should apologise to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft. In the past I have had some fun at his expense, especially when dealing with statutory policies. It may surprise Opposition Back Benchers to know that the right hon. Gentleman was merely repeating Conservative Party policy when he said that he does not rule out a statutory policy. It is all in the "blue book "." The Right Approach" makes it clear, after pointing out the difficulties, that
 experience demonstrates the unwisdom of…rejecting the idea ".
The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) is looking rather serious. I assume that he would have put it the other way round. The reason why certain passages appear in the little "blue book" is that the Tories know that their alternative


policies cannot succeed and that they would have to return to a statutory incomes policy.
The Opposition's alternative incomes policy is, as we have been constantly told, all set out in the "blue book ". The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson)—I do not see him for the moment—becomes very upset when Opposition policy is questioned. When we last debated these matters in February he told the House that the Government should not continue to ask questions about Opposition policy because the answers were all set out in the little "blue book ".
The "blue book" has 71 pages and two-thirds of one page relates to incomes policy. One alternative, covering six lines, relates to the West German policy for concerted action. As that is the Opposition's policy, I assume that they know what it is. It involves a highly centralised system of meetings between Government, employers and trade unions where they agree on a consensus on what should be the appropriate level of earnings for the following year. It is to be a "consensus"; it is not a norm. It is not that four-letter word. It is not an average but a consensus. If the Opposition are to propose concerted action of the West German style without setting out any specific figure, as the right hon. Lady tells us, how will they pursue that policy? I wish that they would tell us the alternative instead of using the sort of language that we have heard today. There is no conceivable alternative in that direction, and they know it.
Fortunately for the Opposition Front Bench, the "blue book" goes on to explain:
 It would be foolish to pretend that this can be accomplished overnight.
They are certainly right about that. They tell us that they would use "every available means ". There would be no brandishing of norms. There would not even be brandishing of averages. Instead we should have the brandishing of monetary restraint and cash limits.
How will that system work? In the two-thirds of one page of the "blue book" we do not have that explanation, but there is another book. It is a little blue book containing 50 questions and answers. I read it and there was not one sentence that told us the answer to the problem. I looked a little further afield

—[Interruption.] I am surprised that Opposition Members do not want to know the policy of their Front Bench. I am astonished. I thought that they wanted to know that policy. I think that I should tell them because they really do not know.
The policy of the Opposition in the other little blue book is "detailed explanation ". Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will explain how she can have a detailed explanation without giving specific figures. How will the Opposition set figures for cash limits in the public sector without a guideline for pay? Are they really suggesting that they will have a cash limit on which they will make an assumption about pay and not tell anybody? Is that their policy? Is that a policy of full explanation? What will they do in the private sector? We are told that they will have free collective bargaining and a tight monetary target.

Mr. Prior: Hon. Members below the Gangway are leaving the Chamber.

Mr. Barnett: The right hon. Member for Lowestoft obviously does not want to hear what the Opposition policy is. The Opposition want free collective bargaining and a tight monetary policy. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House listened to the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in reasonable silence. Only a few minutes are left.

Mr. Barnett: The Opposition believe in free collective bargaining with nothing to keep to the average but a tight monetary policy.
We were accused of operating an arbitrary and unjust policy. I can assure the Opposition that there would be nothing more arbitrary and unjust than a tight monetary policy and free collective bargaining which would be arbitrary on small firms in particular. There would be massive bankruptcies. [HON. MEMBERS:" Rubbish."] I have had a little to do with cash limits. Cash limits are now made to appear to be a substitute for a public sector pay policy. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said in February that using the public tail to wag the private dog was not a great success in the past and would not be a great success now. But that is the Opposition's policy and nothing else.
Cash limits should reflect pay policy. They are not a substitute for pay policy. But the Opposition use cash limits as if they were a magic formula which will solve all our problems. The Opposition have exposed their inability to explain their policy. They have no answer.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouch rose—

Mr. Barnett: I shall not give way.

Mr. Crouch: Mr. Crouchrose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Barnett: The debate has shown—

Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Member give way?

Mr. Barnett: No.

In today's debate we have heard much extravagant language. We have had not a single alternative. The amendment agrees that we must bring down the rate of inflation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Say something."] We have heard not a single alternative. The amendment stresses

the need to reduce the rate of inflation. The Government are prepared to act on that but the Opposition are prepared to do nothing—[Interruption.] I feel that I shall not be able to make myself heard in the last few minutes, but I shall try. I remember a dispute between the Leader of the Opposition and her right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). [HON. MEMBERS: "What about us? "] No, I want to talk about this lot —the Opposition. There was a major row between the right hon. Member for Sidcup and the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman came out on top. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft said that the answer to the problem was—

Mr. Humphrey Atkins: Mr. Humphrey Atkins(Spelthorne)rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 279.

Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Molyneaux, James
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Monro, Hector
Sims, Roger


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Montgomery, Fergus
Sinclair, Sir George


Hurd, Douglas
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Morgan, Geraint
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


James, David
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Jenkln, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Morris, Michael {Northampton S)
Speed, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Spence, John


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Mudd, David
Sproat, Iain


Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Neave, Airey
Stainton, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Nelson, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Neubert, Michael
Stanley, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Newton, Tony
Steel, Rt Hon David


Kershaw, Anthony
Nott, John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Kilfedder, James
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Kimball, Marcus
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Page, John (Harrow West)
Stokes, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Stradling, Thomas J.


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, Richard (Workington)
Tapsell, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Paisley, Rev Ian
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Knox, David
Pardoe, John
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Lamont, Norman
Parkinson, Cecil
Tebbit, Norman


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lawson, Nigel
Penhaligon, David
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Percival, Ian
Thompson, George


Lloyd, Ian
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Townsend, Cyril D.


Loveridge, John
Pink, R. Bonner
Trotter, Neville


Luce, Richard
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Van Straubenzee, W. R.


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Vaughan, Dr Gerard


MacCormick, Iain
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Viggers, Peter


McCrindle, Robert
Prior, Rt Hon James
Wainwrighl, Richard (Colne V)


McCusker, H.
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Wakeham, John


Macfariane, Neil
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


MacGregor, John
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wall, Patrick


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Reid, George
Walters, Dennis


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Warren, Kenneth


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Watt, Hamish


Madel, David
Rhodes James, R.
Weatherill, Bernard


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Wells, John


Marten, Neil
Ridsdale, Julian
Welsh, Andrew


Mates, Michael
Rifkind, Malcoim
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Mather, Carol
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Whitney, Raymond


Maude, Angus
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wiggin, Jerry


Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Mawby, Ray
Royle, Sir Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Sainsbury, Tim
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Mayhew, Patrick
St. John-Stevas, Norman
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott, Nicholas
Younger, Hon George


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)



Mills, Peter
Shelton, William (Streatham)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Miscampbell, Norman
Shepherd, Colin
Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Shersby, Michael
Mr. Michael Roberts.


Moate, Roger






NOES


Abse, Leo
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Cronin, John


Allaun, Frank
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)


Anderson, Donald
Buchan, Norman
Cryer, Bob


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Buchanan, Richard
Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)


Armstrong, Ernest
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Davidson, Arthur


Ashley, Jack
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)


Ashton, Joe
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Campbell, Ian
Davies, Ifor (Gowar)


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Canavan, Dennis
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cant, R. B.
Deakins, Eric


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Carmichael, Neil
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Keywood)
Carter, Ray
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund


Bates, Alf
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dempsey, James


Bean, R. F.
Cartwright, John
Dewar, Donald


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Doig, Peter


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Dormand, J. D.


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cohen, Stanley
Douglas-Mann, Bruce


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Duffy, A. E. P.


Boardman, H.
Concannon, Rt Hon John
Dunn, James A.


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Conlan, Bernard
Dunnett, Jack


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Eadle, Alex


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Corbett, Robin
Edge, Geoff


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Cowans, Harry
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Bradley, Tom
Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
English, Michael


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)
Ennals, Rt Hon David


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Crawshaw, Richard
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)

Evans Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rowlands, Ted


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Lomas, Kenneth
Ryman, John


Evans, John (Newton)
Luard, Evan
Sandelson, Neville


Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Sedgemore, Brian


Faulds, Andrew
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Selby, Harry


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Flannery, Martin
McElhone, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Ford, Ben
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Forrester, John
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Maclennan, Robert
Sillars, James


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Silverman, Julius


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Madden, Max
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


George, Bruce
Magee, Bryan
Snape, Peter


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mahon, Simon
Spearing, Nigel


Ginsburg, David
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Spriggs, Leslie


Golding, John
Marks, Kenneth
Stallard, A. W.


Gould, Bryan
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Gourlay, Harry
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Stoddart, David


Graham, Ted
Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Stott, Roger


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Strang, Gavin


Grant, John (Islington C)
Meacher, Michael
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Grocott, Bruce
Meilish, Rt Hon Robert
Summerskill. Hon Dr Shirley


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mikardo, Ian
Swain, Thomas


Hardy, Peter
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Moonman, Eric
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Thome, Stan (Preston South)


Hayman, Mrs Helene
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.
Tierney, Sydney


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tilley, John


Heffer, Eric S.
Morton, George
Tinn, James


Home Robertson, John
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland
Tomlinson, John


Hooley, Frank
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Tomney, Frank


Horam, John
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Torney, Tom


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Newens, Stanley
Tuck, Raphael


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Noble, Mike
Urwin, T. W.


Huckfield, Les
Oakes, Gordon
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ogden, Eric
Wainwrlght, Edwin (Dearne V)


Hunter, Adam
O'Halloran, Michael
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Darftord)
Orbach, Maurice
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Ward, Michael


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Watkins, David


Janner, Greville
Padley, Walter
Watkinson, John


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Palmer, Arthur
Weetch, Ken


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Park, George
Weitzman, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parker, John
Wellbeloved, James


John, Brynmor
Parry, Robert
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Pavitt, Laurie
White, James (Pollok)


Johnston, Walter (Derby S)
Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Phillip


Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Perry, Ernest
Whitlock, William


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Phipps, Dr Colin
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Judd, Frank
Price, William (Rugby)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Radice, Giles
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Kelley, Richard
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn,(Leeds S)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Richardson, Miss Jo
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Kinnock, Neil
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamborn, Harry
Roberts, Gwllym (Canunock)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Lamond, James
Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Woodall, Alec


Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Woof, Robert


Lee, John
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Young, David (Bolton E)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)



Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Rooker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roper, John
Mr. James Hamilton and


Litterick, Tom
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Mr. Donald Coleman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put:—

Division No. 25]
AYES
[10.19 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Baker, Kenneth
Biffen, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Banks, Robert
Biggs-Davison, John


Alison, Michael
Beith, A. J.
Blaker, Peter


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bell, Ronald
Body, Richard


Arnold, Tom
Bendall, Vivian
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorno)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David (B'moulh, East)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)


Awdry, Daniel
Benyon, W.
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Berry, Hon Anthony
Bradford, Rev Robert

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 283.

Braine, Sir Bernard
Hayhoe, Barney
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Brittan, Leon
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Page, John (Harrow West)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Henderson, Douglas
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)


Brotherton, Michael
Hicks, Robert
Paisley, Rev Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Higgins, Terence L.
Pardoe, John


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hodgson, Robin
Parkinson, Cecil


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Holland, Philip
Pattle, Geoflrey


Buck, Antony
Hooson, Emlyn
Penhaligon, David


Budgen, Nick
Hordern, Peter
Perclval, Ian


Bulmer, Esmond
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Burden. F. A.
Howell, David (Guildford)
Pink, R. Bonner


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Carlisle, Mark
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Channon, Paul
Hurd, Douglas
Prior, Rt Hon James


Churchill, W. S.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Raison, Timothy


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifle)
James, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Clegg, Walter
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&amp;W'df'd)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Cockcroft, John
Jessel, Toby
Reid, Georgo


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Cope, John
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Rhodes James, R.


Costain, A. P.
Jopling, Michael
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ridsdale, Julian


Crawford, Douglas
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Rifkind, Malcolm


Critchley, Julian
Kershaw, Anthony
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Crouch, David
Kilfedder, James
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, F. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Royle, Sir Anthony


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Sainsbury, Tim


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kitson, Sir Timothy
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Drayson, Burnaby
Knight, Mrs Jill
Scott, Nicholas


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Knox, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Dunlop, John

Shelton, William (Streatham)


Durant, Tony
Lamont, Norman
Shepherd, Colin


Dykes, Hugh
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Shersby, Michael


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Lawson, Nigel
Silvester, Fred


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Sims, Roger


Emery, Peter
Lloyd, Ian
Sinclair, Sir George


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Loveridge, John
Skeet, T. H. H.


Eyre, Reginald
Luce, Richard
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Fairgrieve, Russell
MacCormick, Iain
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Farr, John
McCrindle, Robert
Speed, Keith


Fell, Anthony
Macfarlane, Nell
Spence, John


Fisher, Sir Nigel
MacGregor, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
MacKay, Andrew (Slechford)
Sproat, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Macmlllan, Rt Hon M. (Fornham)
Stainton, Keith


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Fox, Marcus
McNalr-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stanley, John


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Madel, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Freud, Clement
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Fry, Peter
Marten, Neil
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Galbralth, Hon T. G. D.
Mates, Michael
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mather, Carol
Stokes, John


Gardner, Edward (S Fyide)
Maude, Angus
Stradling, Thomas J.


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian (Chesham)
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Tapsell, Peter


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mayhew, Patrick
Tebbit, Norman


Goodhart, Philip
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Temple-Morris, Peter


Goodhew, Victor
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Thatcher, Rt Won Margaret


Goodlad, Alastair
Mills, Peter
Thompson, George


Gorst, John
Miscampbell, Norman
Townsend, Cyril D.


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Trottor Neville


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Moate, Roger
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Gray, Hamish
Moiyneaux, James
Veughan, Dr Gerard


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Viggers, Peter


Griffiths, Eldon
Montgomery, Fergus
Wainwright, Richard (Coine V)


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Wakeham, John


Grist, Ian
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Gryils, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Wall, Patrick


Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom &amp; Ewell)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Walters, Dennis


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Hon Charles (Devizes)
Warren, Kenneth


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Watt, Hamish


Hannam, John
Mudd, David
Weatherill, Bernard


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Wells, John


Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Nelson, Anthony
Weish, Andrew


Haselhurst, Alan
Neubert, Michael
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Hastings, Stephen
Newton, Tony
Whitney, Raymond


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Nott, John
Wiggin, Jerry


Hawkins, Paul
Onslow, Cranley
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)







Winterton, Nicholas
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Younger, Kon George
Mr. Spencer le Marchant and




Mr. Michael Roberts.




NOES


Abse, Leo
Evans Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Allaun, Frank
Evans, loan (Aberdare)
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, John (Newton)
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Faulds, Andrew
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Ashley, Jack
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
McNamara, Kevin


Ashton, Joe
Flannery, Martin
Madden, Max


Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Magee, Bryan


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mahon, Simon


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Ford, Ben
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Forrester, John
Marks, Kenneth


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Bales, Alf
Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bean, R. E.
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Maynard, Miss Joan


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
George, Bruce
Meacher, Michael


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ginsburg, David
Mikardo, Ian


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Boardman, H.
Gould, Bryan
Mitchell, Austin (Grlmsby)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Gourlay, Harry
Moonman, Eric


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Graham, Ted
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Morris, Rt Hon Charles R.


Boyden, James (Bish Auck)
Grant, John (Islington C)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Bradley, Tom
Grocott, Bruce
Morton, George


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Moyle, Rt Hon Roland


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King


Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Newens, Stanley


Buchan, Norman
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Noble, Mike


Buchanan, Richard
Hayman, Mrs Helene
Oakes, Gordon


Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Ogden, Eric


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Heffer, Eric S.
O'Halloran, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Middlelon &amp; P)
Home Robertson, John
Orbach, Maurice


Campbell, Ian
Hooley, Frank
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Canavan, Dennis
Horam, John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cant, R. B.
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Padley, Walter


Carmichael, Neil
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Palmer, Arthur


Carter, Ray
Huckfield, Les
Park, George


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Parker, John


Cartwright, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pendry, Tom


Cohen, Stanley
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Perry, Ernest


Colquhoun, Ms Maureen
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Phipps, Dr Colin


Concannon, Rt Hon John
Janner, Greville
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Conian, Bernard
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, William (Rugby)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jeger, Mrs Lena
Radice, Giles


Corbett, Robin
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Cowans, Harry
John, Brynmor
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cralgen, Jim (Maryhill)
Johnston, Walter (Derby S)
Roberts, Gwlym (Cannock)


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Alec (Rhondda)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Cronin, John
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Cryer, Bob
Judd, Frank
Rodgers, Geo'e (Chorley)


Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Davidson, Arthur
Kelley, Richard
Rooker, J. W.


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Kerr, Russell
Roper, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kinnock, Neil
Rowlands, Ted


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Lamborn, Harry
Ryman, John


Deakins, Eric
Lamond, James
Sandelson, Neville


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Lee, John
Selby, Harry


Dempsey, James
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Dewar, Donald
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Dormand, J. D.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Shore, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)


Dougias-Mann, Bruce
Litterick, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Dunn, James A,
Lomas, Kenneth
Sillars, James


Dunnett, Jack
Loyden, Eddie
Silverman, Julius


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Skinner, Dennis


Edge, Geoff
Lyon, Alexander (York)
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Snape, Peter


English, Michael
Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Spearing, Nigel


Ennais, Rt Kon David
McElhone, Frank
Spriggs, Leslie


Evans, Fred (Caershillly)
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Stailard, A. W.







Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Torney, Tom
Willley, Rt Kon Frederick


Stoddart, David
Tuck, Raphael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stott, Roger
Urwln, T. W.
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Strang, Gavin
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)


Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)


Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)


Swain, Thomas
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Wilson, Willam (Coventry SE)


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Button W)
Ward, Michael
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Watkins, David
Woodall, Alec


Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Watkinson, John
Woof, Robert


Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Weetch, Ken
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Thome, Stan (Preston South)
Weitzman, David
Young, David (Bolton E)


Tierney, Sydney
Wellbeloved, James



Tilley, John
White, Frank R. (Bury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Tinn, James
White, James (Pollok)
Mr. James Hamilton and


Tomlinson, John
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr. Donald Coleman.


Tomney, Frank
Whitlock, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House, while stressing the need to achieve a further reduction in the present high rate of inflation, declines to support the Government's arbitrary use of economic sanctions against firms and workers who have negotiated pay settlements beyond a rigid limit which Parliament has not approved.

10.38 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the House has just carried a motion declining
to support the Government's arbitrary use of economic sanctions against films and workers who have negotiated pay settlements beyond a rigid limit —
[An HON. MEMBER:" Speak up."] I shall speak up, and my voice will be heard throughout the country.
Clearly a motion of this kind carried in this way involves a reconsideration by the Government of their present policy. I do not disguise from you, Mr. Speaker, and from the House that, in my view, this

represents a serious defeat for the country's and the Government's light against inflation. Nevertheless, we shall accept the view of the House as it has been expressed and reconsider our policy. But I do not think that we should leave the matter there.
It is important that there should be no uncertainty about the future. We need to make a statement about our future policy on these matters, and what I now propose is that the Government should put their future in the hands of the House. It seems to me important that the Government should know whether or not they have the support of the House on a motion of confidence. Therefore, the Government intend to table forthwithtonight—a motion of confidence. The House will be asked to vote upon it tomorrow. The Government will accept the verdict of the House, and if we are defeated we shall ask the country to choose.

EUROPEAN MONETARY SYSTEM

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether or not you have selected the amendment?

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and others on both this first motion and the succeeding one concerning the common agricultural policy.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Sheldon): I beg to move,

That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/2790/1/78 on the European Currency Unit and the European Monetary Co-operation Fund.

The proposals for the European monetary system were first put forward by Chancellor Schmidt and President Giscard d'Estaing at the European Council meeting in Bremen on 6th and 7th July 1978. All nine Community Heads of Government agreed that the setting up of an area of monetary stability in Europe was a desirable objective, but at that stage no undertakings were given and no commitments were made.

The major elements of the proposal were the setting up of an exchange rate mechanism which would allow changes in exchange rates by mutual consent and the creation of a European currency unit which would contain fixed amounts of the Community currencies and would have the same definition as the European unit of account. The countries taking part would deposit 20 per cent. of their gold and dollar reserves with the European monetary co-operation fund and receive ECUs in return. The ECUs would be used to settle debts between members of the system.

The proposals also envisage the expansion of Community credit facilities up to 25 billion ECUs with consolidation in two years' time in a European monetary fund. Since July there have been negotiations with the central banks and Ministers, with the United Kingdom playing a prominent role. On the basis of the negotiations, the nine Heads of Govern-

ment met in Brussels on 4th and 5th December and agreed to the setting up of the European monetary system on 1st January 1979. They asked the Finance Council meeting, which is to be held on 18th December, to consider the two proposed regulations that we are debating.

Seven countries—Germany, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg and now Italy—have made it clear that they will take part fully in the European monetary system from the outset. The United Kingdom's position was made clear by the Prime Minister in his statement on 6th December when he said that we do not intend to participate in the exchange rate mechanism at the outset although we may do so later if the conditions are right. However, we shall participate in other aspects of the system—for example, the expansion of the medium-term, but not the short-term, Community credit facility and all discussions of the European monetary fund.

We have made it clear that we want sterling to participate in the ECU currency basket. In addition, we may wish to deposit 20 per cent. of our gold and dollar reserves within the European monetary co-operation fund and receive ECUs in return. The Prime Minister indicated that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be considering that matter with the Bank of England.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Will the Financial Secretary make clear the nature of that deposit on the part of the United Kingdom? I take it that it is a deposit that is unconnected with entering into the currency scheme. If so, what are the advantages for the United Kingdom in that period of having a proportion of our reserves exchanged into ECUs?

Mr. Sheldon: It may be advantageous for there to be currency arrangements between the different countries in the same way as SDRs, along with many foreign currencies, are part of the reserves. It may prove convenient to have ECUs among the other currencies as part of our reserves. The Prime Minister announced that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be considering the matter with the Bank of England.
The two regulations that are before the House are the minimum Community legal


framework required to establish the European monetary system. The first regulation would change the unit of account of the European monetary cooperation fund from the existing European monetary unit of account to the ECU, and the second regulation would enable, but not require, the European monetary co-operation fund to receive deposits of gold and dollars from member States and to issue ECUs in return.
I turn to the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). The amendment is acceptable to the Government because the United Kingdom's economic and financial affairs rest in Parliament and will continue to rest in Parliament to that extent until Parliament itself decides formally to surrender part of that control. Although we have chosen not to join the exchange rate mechanism at present, we remain free to do so in future if we wish. We are equally free to remain outside the exchange rate mechanism. In either case, we shall be joining in the development of the ECU and the European monetary fund in the coming months.
Neither of the regulations would create the exchange rate mechanism itself—that is, specify the agreed rates of exchange between participating currencies, the permitted margins of fluctuation and the agreed arrangements for intervention. These matters would not need to be the subject of a Council regulation. The exchange rate mechanism of the existing snake is not governed by a Council regulation. It is the subject of an agreement between participating central banks supported by a Council resolution. It would, however, be possible to make the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS the subject of a Council regulation if the participating countries desired this. If a proposal for such a regulation were made, the Government would ensure, before agreeing to it, that it did not place any obligations on the United Kingdom which were inconsistent with our declared position. As yet, no such proposal has been made.
In due course, there will be a further proposed Council regulation to expand the Community medium-term credit facility. In the longer term, there may need to be Council regulations to set up

the European monetary fund. However, the detailed negotiations about this have not yet begun.
The first regulation under debate would change the unit of account of the European monetary cooperation fund from the existing European monetary unit of account to the European currency unit. The EMCF is the account through which transactions between member States in relation to the EMS will pass. The EMCF was set up in 1973 by Council regulation 907/73 and is at present used to record transactions between members of the snake. It has been agreed that the EMCF will perform the same function for the EMS until it is superseded by the European monetary fund.

Mr. Spearing: It is important to get this matter straight. My right hon. Friend will agree that the European monetary co-operation fund was set up with a view to proceeding towards European economic union. Can my right hon. Friend say whether, in the period of up to two years, the function of the fund will be to manage the EMS? Will the board of governors as constituted by the EMCF operate it, or will the Council of Finance Ministers take on the management pending the permanent arrangement?

Mr. Sheldon: All the operations are in the hands of the Council of Ministers. They will remain so until decisions are made in which we shall take part. These are matters for discussion. In the next few months such details will be worked out.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Prime Minister said that the Government would consider the deposit of 20 per cent. of our gold and dollar reserves with the EMCF. I understand that that is still the position. But did my right hon. Friend say that the Government had actually decided to do that?

Mr. Sheldon: This is for discussion between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Bank of England. A decision has yet to be taken.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: In the context of the European monetary fund being set up in two years' time—although tonight's events and the vote might mean that the Government are no


longer responsible for this task—have the Government already established the outline case for the EMF to be located in London as a physical institution? There is a strong case in favour of its being located in the principal financial centre of Europe.

Mr. Sheldon: The hon. Member is moving rapidly. The basic organisation of the EMF is yet to be discussed. I am sure that the suggestion that London should be its location is worthy of support.
I shall deal with the operations of the EMCF. These are at present expressed in European onetary units of account with a defined value of approximately 0·88 grams of gold. The proposed regulation would require the EMCF's operations in future to be expressed in ECUs.
Article 1 of the regulation defines the ECU as the sum of fixed amounts of the nine Community currencies, including an amount of £0·0885. This definition and the amounts of each currency are the same as for the existing EUA in which a large number of Community transactions are now denominated. The current value of the EUA in sterling terms is about 67p.
The inclusion of sterling in the ECU does not in any way commit the United Kingdom to joining the exchange rate mechanism of the EMS at any time. Similarly, the inclusion of the Irish pound does not commit that country to participating in the exchange rate mechanism at any future date, if it does not do so at the outset. Nor does the inclusion of sterling represent any other commitment to any European obligation. Sterling is already included in the European unit of account.
On the other hand, the inclusion of sterling in the ECU is helpful to the United Kingdom because it will increase our influence in discussions on the future development of the system, both in putting forward our ideas and in resisting the ideas of other countries that could damage our interests. In addition, if we ever decided in future that a change in conditions made it in our interests to join the exchange rate mechanism, it would be helpful to us to have sterling already in the ECU.
Article 2 of the regulation would allow the Council, acting unanimously, to determine the conditions under which the composition of the ECU may be changed. The need for a change could arise if, over a period of time, one or more of the participating, currencies were to appreciate or depreciate significantly in terms of the others. Because the amounts of each currency in the basket are fixed, such a movement could result in the weight of the currencies concerned in the basket rising or falling significantly. For example, the 0·0885 sterling element in the basket currently represents a weight of about 13 per cent. However, if over time sterling were either to appreciate or depreciate in terms of the other currencies, £0·0885 would come to represent either a higher or a lower weight in the basket.
The European Council agreed that the weights of currencies in the ECU should be re-examined and, if necessary, revised within six months of the entry into force of the system and thereafter every five years or on request or if the weight of any currency had changed by 25 per cent. The requirement for Council unanimity safeguards our interests.

Mr. Russell Johnston: I do not claim to be an expert on this subject, but I am advised that there is a point of view that to revise the weights of currencies only after six months and then to let them run for five years, granted that a review may take place on request, is not a realistic approach and that there should be provision for a much more frequent review than is proposed.

Mr. Sheldon: I would not want revisions to take place very frequently. There would be considerable upheavals in determining these rates, and I should have thought that once every five years or on request, on the basis that I have outlined, should meet any objections. There is nothing fixed or permanent about arrangements of this kind, and if the revisions proved to be too infrequent changes could be made.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I am not altogether clear, in spite of the Financial Secretary's remarks, about the passage in the Brussels communique which was published as a White Paper. The right hon. Gentleman made it appear as though the revisions would be automatic following exchange rate changes, provided that they


were mutually agreed. But that is not what the communique says. It states:
 Revisions have to be mutally accepted.…They will be made in line with underlying economic criteria.
Will the Financial Secretary say what that means?

Mr. Sheldon: I thought I had made clear that the matter would be reexamined and, if necessary, revised within six months, and thereafter after five years, if the weight of any currency had changed by 25 per cent. One has a basket of currencies, and it will be revised if the variation in weight alters to the extent I had mentioned. I do not see that any problems will arise, because the mechanism for change exists and will, if necessary, be used.

Mr. Powell: Presumably, the sentence to which the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) has drawn attention implies that even if the weight of a currency is changed by 25 per cent., thus triggering the automatic mechanism, the adjustment will not necessarily precisely correspond with that change in weighting, and may not correspond with it at all theoretically. Is that so?

Mr. Sheldon: The weight will correspond as long as it is outside the limits set—that is, if the weight of any currency has changed by 25 per cent., or it re-examination is made on request. It can then be examined and revised. This is a permissive matter which the European Council can examine. I do not see the dilemma which the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) appears to see. This will accord with realities. The further decisions that will be made to complete the final examination of these affairs will correspond with what I have suggested.
The second regulation under debate would enable the European monetary co-operation fund—the EMCF—to receive monetary reserves from member States and to issue ECUs in return. This provision is contained in article 1. It would enable ECUs issued by the EMCF to be used as a means of settlement between member States and between member States and the EMCF.
This regulation would enable that part of the European monetary system agreed

by the European Council to be established. It provides for member States wishing to do so to deposit 20 per cent. of gold and dollar reserves with the EMCF and to receive ECUs in return. The EMCF is not at present empowered to undertake such transactions, which are not a feature of the snake.
The regulation is purely permissive. In article 1 the crucial words are "empowered to receive" and in article 2 the crucial words are "may be used ". The regulation would not place any obligation on a member State which does not wish to participate in this aspect of the EMS. This position is not affected by the formal reference in article 3 to the regulation being
 binding…in all Member States ".
This refers to the legal status of the regulation as a whole and does not affect the permissive nature of its content.
The European Council agreed that a member State not participating in the exchange rate mechanism might nevertheless participate in the deposit of reserves with the EMCF and the receipt of ECUs in return. It was also agreed that the deposit would take the form of specified revolving swap arrangements.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister told the House on 6th December that the Chancellor would be considering with the Bank of England whether the United Kingdom should take part in this aspect of the EMS. No decision has yet been taken on this. The factors to be taken into account include the attractiveness of the ECUs as a form of investment of part of the United Kingdom's reserves. This will include consideration of the exact terms of the proposed swap arrangements and the yield on the ECUs in comparison with the yield on other possible forms of investment. Further detailed discussions are needed on these points with our European partners.
We shall also need to consider the use to which we would put these ECUs. Article 2 of the proposed regulation would not restrict the use of ECUs as a means of settlement to those member States participating in the exchange rate mechanism.

Mr. Lawson: The Financial Secretary mentioned the yield on the ECU. What yield will it give?

Mr. Sheldon: There is the possibility of being able to use this in our normal financial transactions.

Mr. Lawson: I was referring to the rate of interest on the ECU.

Mr. Sheldon: ECUs will be placed in the market in the same way as we use our dollar reserves. They will be placed in certain markets and we shall get interest. We shall use the ECUs in the same way as we use foreign currencies generally.
As I said, we need to consider the use to which we could put these ECUs. Article 2 of the proposed regulation would not restrict the use of the ECU as a means of settlement to those member States participating in the exchange rate mechanism. However, the precise details of the way in which a member State, such as the United Kingdom, not participating in the exchange rate mechanism could use the ECU in settlement of debts incurred to other EEC member States need to be further discussed.
Another aspect which will require consideration is the extent to which participation in this aspect of the EMS would increase our influence over the development of the ECU as a reserve asset and over the future development of the EMS in general. Again, such influence may be useful both in promoting our own ideas and in resisting any ideas of others which could damage United Kingdom interests.
Because this regulation is purely permissive and places no obligation on the United Kingdom, and because we may wish to deposit reserves and receive ECUs from the EMCF, the Chancellor proposes to support this regulation at the Finance Council on 18th December.

11.7 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Lawson: I wish to ask the Financial Secretary some specific questions before broadening out into one or two wider observations on the European monetary system.
As the Financial Secretary said, article 1 of the second draft regulation empowers the European monetary co-operation fund to receive 20 per cent. of each of the EEC member States' gold and dollar reserves and to issue ECUs in exchange. But will Britain take part in this arrangement or not? If so, will legislation be required? If not, will parliamentary approval be sought?
In his statement to Parliament a week ago, the Prime Minister said that the Government would decide very soon whether to take part and hinted that we would participate. It seems a pity that on this the last occasion for debate before the EMS comes into operation, the Financial Secretary cannot take us any further. I urge him to reconsider and let the House know whether we will take part in the ECU swap system.
Secondly, the Treasury memorandum describes the first draft regulation as altering
 the unit of account in use in the European Monetary Co-operation Fund (EMCF) from the gold-based European Monetary Unit of Account (EMUA) to the European Currency Unit (ECU) which is defined in terms of a basket of Member States' currencies.
But clearly there must still be a link between the ECU and gold, if only to determine the number of ECUs that are handed out in return for the gold deposited with the fund. Can the Financial Secretary tell us what that link will be? At what price will the fund accept gold? The closer that price is to the free open market price, the better. Any attempt to demonetise gold by fixing an artificially low ECU-gold exchange would prove both foolish and futile. At any rate, what is the link to be?
Thirdly, what will be the rate of interest—I asked the Financial Secretary this, but he clearly did not understand the question—on ECUs? He says that it will be just like any other currency, but there is no rate of interest on currencies. Interest is paid on bonds and so on. What will be the rate of interest on ECU holdings?

Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman did not understand the answer that I gave to him. Currency in itself does not provide interest; it is where one puts the currency that provides the interest. I thought that the hon. Gentleman would understand that.

Mr. Lawson: The ECUs are not like a normal currency. One cannot put them somewhere. They are like SDRs, on which a rate of interest must be given, because they, too, are a special reserve creation. They are not a normal currency. So the question is a real one.
Fourthly, who is to bear the cost of exchange losses that will occur from time


to time as a result of the swap arrangements?
The right hon. Gentleman seemed rather confused in his exegesis of the question of changes in the composition of the ECU. As the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) pointed out, two different criteria are set out in the White Paper which embraces the Brussels communique. One is automatic changes in the weights as a result of changes in exchange rates. The other is the much more general sentence and criterion which clearly was not put in to mean nothing. If it does mean nothing, perhaps the Financial Secretary will say so. It states:
 They will be made in line with underlying economic criteria.
Presumably "underlying economic criteria" means something different from changes in weights. Otherwise, that other sentence would not have been put in.
Incidentally, would a change in the composition of the ECU, whenever and however it occurs, automatically be accompanied by a change in the composition of the EUA, which is used for common agricultural policy purposes? In other words, would the initial identity between the two units be automatically maintained?
Of course, the problem of changes in the composition of the ECU, which is already one-third deutschemark and could, I suppose, progressively become more and more like the mark as time goes by, is less acute the fewer changes there are in the exchange rates between the various Community currencies. There is no doubt that the other Community countries accepted sterling as part of the ECU—the right hon. Gentleman boasted of this—despite the fact that the Government have decided not to take part in the exchange rate mechanism at least for the time being as the Financial Secretary put it, because they understood that they had an undertaking from the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer that sterling, although officially outside the mechanism, would informally be kept in line with the other Euro-currencies. Indeed, Herr Schmidt even told the world that the British Government had specifically undertaken, unilaterally as it were, to keep within the EMS margins of plus or minus 2¼ per cent.
However, on BBC 2 last Sunday, in the interval of "Lohengrin ", the Chancellor declared that Herr Schmidt had got it all wrong and that we had agreed to keep the pound stable not in terms of the ECU but in terms of the Smithsonian basket, the trade-weighted index of all currencies, including the dollar. That is a very different matter—

Mr. Powell: The swan, not the snake.

Mr. Lawson: —implying, as it does, that if the dollar continues to fall the pound in turn will continue to depreciate in terms of the mark and other European currencies.
Therefore, my fifth and final question to the Financial Secretary is as follows. Precisely what is the Government's exchange rate policy, both in general terms and in terms of other Community currencies in particular? I see that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), who has a great interest in this matter, is present. Is the Government's exchange rate policy compatible with the continued inclusion of sterling within the ECU basket?
These are all questions of the first importance to Britain, questions to which the House is entitled to have an answer. I hope that the Financial Secretary will deal with every one of them. It may be that one or two or them remain as yet unresolved, with the answers still to be negotiated. But, if that is so, surely this is yet another reason why in our own national interest we should be in there negotiating strongly as fully participating members in the scheme instead of feebly haranguing our fellow swimmers while keeping just one toe in the water ourselves.
The Government's reasons for wishing to keep Britain outside the full EMS, virtually alone following the Italian Parliament's decision this evening to endorse the Italian Government's decision to join after all, become more obscure with every day that passes. Hearing the Chancellor in the debate on 29th November, the innocent listener might have imagined that the trouble was that the British economy was too strong to allow us to join the exchange rate mechanism.
The White Paper has, for the first time, at least given the lie to that bit of


bluster. Buried away in the last paragraph is the coy admission that Britain has been formally designated a less prosperous country and is thus eligible for Community charity. It takes a Socialist Government to reduce Britain to the official status of a less prosperous country when we are enjoying, for the first time, the immense and unique benefit of North Sea oil.
The only serious argument against membership of the EMS is the view, argued with great force by a number of my hon. Friends, that to have any exchange rate policy at all is absurd and doomed to failure. Certainly, the theoretical case for freely floating exchange rates is very strong. But that is emphatically not the Government's position. Both the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have consistently evinced a horror of floating rates and are explicitly determined to maintain a managed exchange rate policy. That being so, the political argument for conducting such a policy within the Community framework is surely overwhelming.
I know that there is a fear among some and a hope among others on both sides of the House that a Bretton Woods-style exchange rate system on a Community basis, which is what the full EMS more or less amounts to, would inexorably lead to European monetary union and the end of the nation State. As usual, this view was most vigorously expressed in our only previous EMS debate on 29th November by the right hon. Member for Down, South, who declared:
 So far from there being no loss of independence by accepting a system of control over our exchange rate, it is the largest loss of independence yet which we could contrive to make; for all the economic decisions lead back, feed back, into the exchange rate. Surrender the right to control the exchange rate —surrender control over it to another body—and one has, directly or indirectly, surrendered the control of all the economic levers of government."—[Official Report, 29th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 512.]
I find this a little puzzling. I had always understood the right hon. Gentleman's view to be that we had lost our sovereignty when we entered the EEC in 1973. I should have thought that sovereignty, in this respect, was like virginity. Once one has lost it, one cannot lose it a second time. More fundamental than this, there is no way in which a Bretton

Woods-type arrangement can of itself lead to monetary union. While an EMS can be operated within the framework of our existing political institutions, monetary union—that is, a common currency can emerge only from the aftermath of political union and the creation of new political institutions appropriate to such a union.
No doubt, in a sense, the Zollverein paved the way to the German federation a century ago, but the crucial fact is that it was only after Prussia and Bismarck had achieved a political union through blood and iron that a common German currency could be born. This was the great fallacy of the Werner plan of 1970–I remember writing so at the time—the idea that a common currency could somehow precede the creation of common political institutions and political union. It is equally fallacious today, whether voiced by pro- or anti-Marketeers.
The truth of the matter is probably rather closer to the evidence given to the Expenditure Committee inquiry into the EMS by Professor Laidler, the distinguished economist, monetarist and tax exile. [Laughter.] He is a sensible man. He concluded that opponents of monetary union should support the EMS and that supporters of monetary union should oppose it.
Those of us, including the Government, probably, as well as the Opposition, who are not obsessed with the vision of European monetary union see the EMS principally in the context of the political and economic desirability of a greater degree of convergence among the economies of the EEC member States.
There is some trouble here. I believe that the fashionable term "convergence" has been used, especially by the Government, far too loosely. A convergence of attitudes and objectives among those responsible for economic policy in the various Community countries is an indispensible part of the process. But the key concept must be the determination to achieve a convergence of rates of inflation and to accomplish this by converging towards the German rate of inflation. However, to speak, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has done frequently, of a convergence of rates of economic growth and, equally—and in direct logical contradiction to this—of a convergence


towards equality of national wealth are both to utter economic absurdities which can result only in Governments taking their eyes off the anti-inflation ball.
I believe that if it evolves in the right way the EMS can assist the achievement of a beneficent convergence of inflation rates. I also believe that Britain's ability to see that it evolves in the right way requires us to be in there—certainly availing ourselves of the wider margins which are open to non-snake members—negotiating as full members.
We are paying a very high price for the present Government's wholly negative and passive attitude to Europe. Had we adopted a more positive and more constructive approach, we could have been promoting a European initiative wholly consonant and wholly in harmony with our national interests. Instead, the present Government have simply sat back, reacting belatedly to Franco-German initiatives as and when they arose. It may be that the divisions within the Labour Party run so deep and the Government's authority, as we saw tonight, is so shallow that no other course was possible. But to abandon the direction of Europe to a Franco-German axis is no way to serve Britain's national interests.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add
 welcomes the Prime Minister's refusal to tie the United Kingdom to the European Monetary System of exchange rate control; and welcomes the views of the Prime Minister expressed in this House on 6th December last concerning the control by Government and Parliament of the economic and financial affairs of the nation ".
The amendment welcomes the Government's basic decision not to tie the £ sterling in the straitjacket of a fixed exchange rate regime. Incidentally, I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has already accepted the amendment.
I shall not rehearse the economic arguments against fixed exchange rates, partly because I did my best to express them in our debate on 29th November. I say only that I am not impressed by the claim that the EMS means fixed but adjustable rather than just fixed exchange rates. After all, so did Bretton Woods. But we found by experience that an

alteration of the parity of the £ sterling under Bretton Woods in both 1949 and 1967 required just as much economic damage before the change was made and as much of a political convulsion when it was made as the change in 1931, which was not under a regime of theoretically adjustable exchange rates.
But, of course, as we have heard tonight, exchange rate control is not the whole story of the EMS by any means. We are also confronted with a proposal, which is clearly a most important part of the scheme, for each member to deposit 20 per cent. of its gold and dollar reserves with a newly-created European monetary fund, which appears in some respects to be attempting to become a rival to the International Monetary Fund.
I have not yet seen any convincing case for our depositing 20 per cent. of our national currency reserves in this way. Gold and dollars, whatever else one may think about them, are acceptable throughout the world. Heaven knows how acceptable ECUs would be.

Dr. Colin Phipps: Far more than dollars.

Mr. Jay: Dollars are acceptable, though the exchange rate may change from time to time. But would central banks outside the EEC accept ECUs in payment of their debts?

Dr. Phipps: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if central banks had had the opportunity to be tied to an ECU of the kind that is currently being described back in, say, 1958, they would currently be twice as well off as they would have been if their money was in dollars?

Mr. Jay: That does not prove that they would necessarily be acceptable by all other central banks. I would like my right hon. Friend the Minister to tell us whether there is any ground for supposing that they would.
I believe that what really matters most to the House tonight is that the British Government and Parliament should retain control over those instruments of economic policy which effectively determine levels of employment, prices, production and so on. That is the main reason why we most warmly welcomed the Prime


Minister's statement in the House on 6th December when he said:
 The control by Parliament of this country's economic and financial affairs must always be absolute, except to the extent that we ourselves decide formally to surrender a part of it, as we did, for example, when we entered the International Monetary Fund."— [Official Report, 6th December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 1427.]
I hope that the Government and the House will put those words of the Prime Minister firmly on the record by accepting the amendment.
But, if that is the view of the Prime Minister and the House, it reinforces the argument I advanced on 29th November that the Government need legislation by this House before they surrender part of our currency reserves, which, after all, are public property, to a new international fund, just as we legislated in December 1945 in the case of the IMF, which the Prime Minister rightly quoted as a precedent.
But here I think that many in the House may well be puzzled as to what the Government's intentions are. In the debate on 29th November, in response to a question from me, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
 There is no question in any case of that type of handing-over of reserves to an international fund at this stage. All that has been agreed in principle is that negotiations would take place with a view to setting up a fund two years after the exchange rate regime comes into effect. If these negotiations were ever concluded and we were part, we should certainly need legislation in order to participate." —[Official Report, 29th November 1978; Vol. 959, c. 493.]
There again, of course, he meant legislation by this House. The House and the Government must have taken that—certainly I did—as a firm pledge that legislation would be introduced before reserves were handed over and that this would not in any case take place before two years from now. That is the plain meaning of what the Chancellor said.
It was, therefore, at first sight a little surprising when the Prime Minister said on 6th December in his statement to the House:
 We are free to choose whether or not we wish to deposit 20 per cent. of our gold and dollar reserves with the European monetary co-operation fund against issue to us of a corresponding value of ECUs. This is a matter that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will

consider shortly with the Bank of England." —[Official Report. 6th December 1978; Vol. 959, c. 1421.]
In the Prime Minister's version, it would be considered not two years hence, but "shortly ". We have had it confirmed clearly by my right hon. Friend the Minister tonight that no further decision on this has been taken, at any rate since the Prime Minister's speech.
After the debate, I wrote to the Chancellor asking him to explain what was intended, and I am grateful to him for promptly replying in a letter which I got today. What I understand him now to be saying is as follows. In the first stage to be immediately considered, in the interim period before the full EMF is set up, we may or may not deposit 20 per cent. of our reserves with the EMCF. Then, in the possible second stage, two years or more hence, the full EMF could be set up, and for this second operation, the Chancellor confirms, United Kingdom legislation would be needed.
The main question I want to put to my right hon. Friend tonight arises because the Chancellor states in his letter that in the first stage the Government arc merely considering whether legislation will be required. I should like to urge strongly that legislation certainly would be required, for constitutional, legal and political reasons, in accordance with the pledges both of the IMF precedent and of the Chancellor of 29th November. It would be required for the immediate transfer in the first stage as well as for the second stage two years hence.
We should equally, surely, in the first stage be handing over a substantial slice of our national currency reserve to an international fund. That is not in dispute. If we took this action, that is what we should be doing.
The IMF precedent is similar in all essentials, and in his letter to me of 12th December the Chancellor also said—my right hon. Friend said something like it this evening:
 It is envisaged that all the interim arrangements for the EMS (including deposit of reserves with the EMCF) would be subsumed and consolidated into the essential arrangements for the EMF ".
But surely it follows that if membership of the EMF certainly requires legislation for subscription to the fund, as the Chancellor has told us, and if the interim


arrangements for the EMCF can be subsumed and consolidated into the full EMF, the interim deposit of reserves must equally require legislation in the first place. I cannot think that my right hon. Friend will deny that. I do not think that the House wants to be subsumed or consolidated by stealth into the European monetary fund.
I ask my right hon. Friend not merely to accept our amendment, although I am delighted that he has done that, but to tell us clearly tonight—indeed, to admit —that the interim deposit requires legislation here in advance of any consolidation as a second step, and to give an undertaking that our national reserves will not be deposited with the EMCF at any early date until appropriate legislation has been brought before Parliament and approved, as was done in the case of Bretton Woods. I do not think that the House should be content with anything less than that this evening.

11.34 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I am glad that the amendment is to be made and that we are to have a motion which specifically embodies the statement of the Prime Minister on 6th December. It is not clear whether the Opposition intend, flushed by their exploits earlier this evening, to vote against the amendment, but I think that probably, even if they did, the outcome might be very different from that which occurred earlier.
The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) was quite right to distinguish between the convergence of exchange rates on the one hand and, on the other hand, convergence of economic growth or economic wealth. Where I think he was mistaken was in degrading the importance of convergence of inflation rates. Even the most—

Mr. Lawson: Mr. Lawson rose—

Mr. Powell: Can I develop my reasons for so saying?

Mr. Lawson: But the right hon. Gentleman has misunderstood.

Mr. Powell: If I am mistaken and have misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, then of course I give way.

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman has it wrong. I specifically said that the important convergence was convergence of inflation rates and, specifically, convergence towards the German inflation rates.

Mr. Powell: I did take that and thought I had reflected that statement. At any rate, I meant to do so. From that, the hon. Gentleman deduced that the consequences for our economic sovereignty of committing ourselves to convergence of exchange rates fell very far short of economic and monetary union which is envisaged by the proposal of the Commission as one of the implied intentions of the European monetary system.
This, I think, is a mistake and a serious mistake. Even the most convinced and thoroughgoing monetarist would admit that the inflation rate which is actually experienced is the outcome of highly complex decisions taken in the respective countries. No one can say that a particular fiscal policy or a particular budgetary policy will produce that degree of inflation. The degree of inflation is the upshot of all the forces which are operating.
In order, therefore, to produce convergence of inflation rates, in the narrowest sense of inflation rates, it would be necessary to have a thoroughgoing identification, a thoroughgoing approximation, of all branches of the economic policy of the Governments concerned. But, of course, that does not exhaust the implications of exchange rate variations, since exchange rate variations reflect not only variations in inflation in the respective countries but the whole variation of economic experience and the reaction of a particular country to that experience.
So the Prime Minister was thoroughly justified, in the passage to which the motion will now refer, in referring, in the context of exchange rate approximation in the EMS, to
 The control by Parliament of this country's economic and financial affairs ".
The importance of his statement is difficult to exaggerate. He qualified his assertion that that control "must always be absolute ", but he qualified it in a


very important way. He said, first of all, that it must be absolute
 except to the extent that we ourselves "—
that is, the United Kingdom—
 decide formally "—
not tacitly by accepting some decisions of the Government in the Council of Ministers, but formally—
 to surrender a part of it.
Secondly, the Prime Minister envisaged this occurring only in an international context which he was specifically distinguishing from a European context. That is a significant point, because, of course, the extent to which participation in the International Monetary Fund implies a surrender of our sovereign control over our economic affairs is very different from that which is implied by surrender to the European Economic Community, which is an institution established with the purpose and intention of creating political through economic and monetary union.

Mr. Dykes: So what?

Mr. Powell: "So what?" is the greatest of all questions in politics—whether you do or do not wish to be citizens of a nation or of a province of a European State. That is the "So what?" and that is well understood.
But perhaps it was the third qualification which was the most important.
The Prime Minister said that it
 must be a deliberate and conscious decision by this country and its people."—[Official Report, 6th December 1978, Vol. 959, c. 1427–28.1

Mr. Dykes: And the Roman Catholics

Mr. Powell: It does involve—

Mr. Dykes: Surrender to the Roman Catholics.

Mr. Powell: It does involve our right in this country not to have decisions imposed upon us from outside—

Mr. Dykes: By Roman Catholics.

Mr. Powell: Whether by Roman Catholics or anyone else—by authorities external—

Mr. Dykes: Of which we are a part.

Mr. Powell: —by authorities external to this realm—

Mr. Dykes: Of which we are a part.

Mr. Powell: —even if we are a minority in that authority.
At this point I break off my running dialogue with the hon. Member, to whom I do not intend to give way.

Mr. Dykes: Why not?

Mr. Powell: Because we have only a limited time. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order.

Mr. Powell: I am conscious of using a good deal of the remaining time of this debate. I am not, therefore, intending to give way to the hon. Member, who, by persisting, is merely wasting time
I was saying that the last qualification is the most important one—that there must be a deliberate and conscious decision by this country and its people. I was immediately reminded by that terminology—and I do not think accidentally on the Prime Minister's part— of a very famous sentence of the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) which he formulated shortly before the General Election of 1970, when he said that the entry of this country into the European Economic Community could take place only with the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people.
That undertaking was not fulfilled. It was disregarded. But it is being renewed now by the Prime Minister, who has formally stated—and his formulation was clearly not accidentally chosen on the spur of the moment—that any further surrender of economic decision by this country to any external authority, but particularly to that of the EEC, must be subject to a deliberate and conscious decision not merely and only by Parliament but by the people.
So we have reached a decisive point. First of all, the decision of last week is the first moment when we have declined to take a further step towards economic, monetary and political union. A halt has been called. But in calling that halt the Prime Minister has imposed a barrier, similar to the barrier which was breached and neglected in 1970 to 1972, and that is that there must be a deliberate and conscious consent, not only of Parliament but of the electorate which lies behind Parliament, if there is to be any further


advance in that direction or any further surrender of the control by Parliament of this country's economic and financial affairs which, subject to that condition, "must always be absolute ".
Although this is one of these comparatively minor debates and although the hour is late, I believe that the placing upon the record of that statement by the Prime Minister, in the context in which it was made, is one of the most important events in our endeavours to regain the sovereign independence of this country which was given away in 1972.

11.43 p.m.

Mr. John Roper: I am not altogether surprised, being a habitué of these debates, that the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) supports the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), but I was sorry to hear that my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary felt that he should accept the amendment.
I support what my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have done in the past few months in trying to find a satisfactory basis for a European monetary system. I can understand the reasons why, at the end of the day, they were unable to accept that we should play our part in the exchange rate regime while none the less ensuring that we played our full part in the other sections of the EMS. However, I do not share the Financial Secretary's view that this is something which the House should welcome. I believe that it is something that the House should regret.
It is unfortunate that my right hon. Friends were not able to persuade their colleagues in the Council of Ministers and eventually in the European Council that a system could be evolved to take account of the interests not merely of this country but of the Republic of Ireland. It is unfortunate that they could not persuade the President of France, for example, to make the necessary contributions to the European regional fund and the German Chancellor to make modifications which they felt necessary.
I cannot accept that we should welcome the fact that it was not possible for us to take part. It is a setback for this

country and for the Community as a whole that we have not found a way to take part in the EMS. I believe that both the Community and this country are worse off because we have been unable to find a solution

Mr. Dykes: In the context of the Italian Republic, which has far greater internal economic and currency problems than we have, despite a recent improvement in its balance of payments, now deciding, with great courage on the part of both Parliament and Government in a difficult coalition set-up, to join the system is it not even more deplorable that the British Government did not have the courage to do the same?

Mr. Roper: I do not want to comment on the views of the Italian Government. We had a chance to read them today, and we shall have a chance tomorrow to read the debates which took place in the Chamber of Deputies.
It is a pity that the developments towards a European monetary system were not linked, as was proposed by my right hon. Friend at Bremen, by successful concurrent measures, including the enlargement of the regional fund, particularly the "third window" of the regional fund for which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary pressed at the appropriate stages. That would have been to the advantage of the Republic of Italy, the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, that was not achieved.
I think that it would be wrong for the House to place on record that it welcomed the fact that we were not to play our part within the exchange system. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench will think again about their acceptance of the amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North.
e welcome those parts in the Prime Minister's statement in which he made it clear that we would go on playing our full part in the development of the system. As was said in the debate on 29th November, this is obviously an evolving system. It is fortunate that we are to play our part.

Mr. Nick Budgen: Evolving towards what?

Mr. Roper: Evolving to working out mechanisms for greater convergence in economic policy-making within the countries of the Community, so that—this goes back to the points made by the right hon. Member for Down, South about the problems of currency fluctuations—we can enjoy within the Community a zone of monetary stability of the kind which exists in the United States and which existed for a long time in the sterling area. It would be of advantage to us if that could be achieved. In the coming months, we should work towards being able to take our part in the exchange system.
It was a psychological and political disappointment to many of my hon. Friends that we were unable to reach that solution last week. That is why we believe that the acceptance of the amendment would be a mistake, because it would put us on record as welcoming a situation in which we had failed to play our part in developing what I believe is an important part of the future of the European Community.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Russell Johnston: In the time available, and with a lot of hon. Members still wishing to speak, it is possible only to jot down a few headings rather than to develop any argument at length.
I quite agree with what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) implied, that it is a great pity that in such a short debate so late at night we should deal with matters which, as the right hon. Gentleman rightly said, are of fundamental importance and which very much extend to basic and deep arguments which still persist within the country about the way in which we should go.
As to the way in which we should go in regard to EMS, my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) said on 29th November that we favoured the Government's joining. Therefore, I was in agreement with the speech of the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). However, this does not mean that we were not, and are not, conscious of the immense pressures which the Government face. One would be very foolish to ignore them. It is difficult in a debate of this sort, particularly within the time available, to disentangle

the general arguments, which to a degree have already been aired, about the for and against of the whole question of the Community from the question of EMS, complicated matter as it is in any event.
Although I rather hesitate to cross swords with the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson), I did not agree with his comparison with Zollverein, the subsequent unification of the federation of German States and the fact that it required the political push and pressure thereafter to do it. It is an entirely different situation with which we are now dealing.
At that stage, one was dealing with a position in Europe where unification was still achieved by conquest. We are no longer in that state, thanks largely to the European Community. But the other side of the coin—and here I agree with the right hon. Member for Down, South —is equally true. One does not take steps such as EMS, or those in relation to convergence which the Chancellor outlined when talking to the EMS sub-committee, without clearly indicating that one is moving in the direction of an economic and monetary union. We must face the fact that that is the case.

Mr. Lawson: Does the hon. Gentleman really believe, for example, that the Government of France are intent on a common European currency and full economic and monetary union?

Mr. Johnston: It is always difficult to tell what the Government of France are intent on at any given moment, although they are certainly always intent upon the well-being of France. But it is a great mistake to judge French attitudes at this particular moment when Giscard d'Estaing is in full flight from the Gaullists for various internal reasons, which the hon. Member for Blaby probably knows as well as anyone else.
We Liberals certainly believe that the argument that EMS would provide stability of currency, consequently enabling forward investment to be more surely made, and at the same time compel a convergence of inflation rates, is the right course to take. It is not an easy course. I quite accept that the Government were right in emphasising the need for the transfer of resources, that it was difficult for us to undertake this, that we might


have to fall out and all the other arguments. I in no way play down those arguments.
However, this debate is linked to the one that we have just had. The reason why Liberal Members were in the Opposition Lobby a short time ago is that we believe that at some stage this country will have to face up to the fact that we shall not be able to control inflation unless we give our prices and incomes policy a statutory base and allow something to be worked out. That is the view we take, and that is why we also argue that an external pressure to reduce inflation would be a desirable thing.
The view has already been expressed that it is questionable whether the Government were at the beginning serious in their intention to join the EMS. I agree that the transfer of resources argument was a fair one, but I do not agree that it was possible in the circumstances to achieve a change in the budgetary contribution and a fundamental revision of the CAP all at once. That was the Government's bargaining position and it was not one that was practical.
The EMS is the first genuine Community system. That is the great difference between it and the snake. There is the agreement for a reserve pooling and the creation of the ECU. I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Down, South said that that is the first step towards a parallel currency, but he might well have done. If he said that, that would be true. That is the objective of the ECU. That is a step towards the establishment of a greater convergence of our economies with the object of providing economic and financial stability within the Community, which surely is a desirable objective.
I hope that the Government will move rather more rapidly in the direction in which they are set. I hope that when the Prime Minister emphasises how positive a role the Government have played in these matters he will ensure in future that that role is more strikingly obvious to the casual observer.

11.52 p.m.

Mr. David Stoddart: I welcome the decision of the Government not to enter the EMS. It would have been a great mistake to enter, not only from the point of view of the future running

of our economy but because undoubtedly it would have been a step towards economic and monetary union, which has not been agreed by the British people and is not wanted by them. Nor is it wanted by the majority in the House. The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) shakes his head, but even tonight we have seen some indications of what EMS would mean. From the debate in the European Parliament, it is clear that the Members of that assembly saw EMS as a significant step towards EMU. I am pleased that we did not take that step. As some see it, it would have been a small step, but in my view it would have been a significant step.
I only hope that the Government will not have second thoughts in about six months' time and decide that perhaps the political storm has abated here and they can take the step of entering EMS. Let us treat the Government with the respect that they are due and let us trust them to adhere to the policy that they have enunciated.
As the hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) said, it is a great pity that these debates are limited to one and a half hours and that they commence after 10 o'clock. It would do the House good to hear some of my hon. Friends who speak on European matters, together with their Opposition colleagues. It would be interesting for other hon. Members to hear exactly how far they are committed to a federal Europe. It would also interest the country to know how far they wished to tie this country's economy and monetary system to the German mark and to ditch the Atlantic alliance which has served us so well. That, in effect, is what they are saying.
They wish to untie us from the United States and tie us to the German mark. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It is no use saying "No ", because that is the tenor of their argument. That is the direction that they wish to take. One of my hon. Friends stated that he wished us in Europe to enjoy the monetary stability enjoyed by the United States of America. The reason why the United States enjoys that stability is that it is a federal State. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear.") I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Dudley, West (Dr. Phipps) and for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) confirm what I say. They are saying that


they want this country to join a federal European State.

Dr. Phipps: That is right.

Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar(Belper): I do.

Mr. Stoddart: I wish that more hon. Members were here to hear my hon. Friends say that. My point is that too many hon. Members are bamboozled into thinking that our membership of the Common Market does not eventually lead us there.
The White Paper states:
To implement the decisions taken under A the European Council requests the Council to consider and to take a decision on 18th December 1978 on the following proposals of the Commission.
What does that mean?
I am also concerned about the last sentence in that paragraph, which reads:
The European Council stresses the importance of henceforth avoiding the creation of permanent MCAs and progressively reducing present MCAs in order to re-establish the unity of prices of the Common Agricultural Policy, giving also due consideration to price policy.
Does that mean automatic devaluation of the green pound? Does it mean that our prices can rise without any further reference to the House?
I should like my right hon. Friend the Minister to answer some of the questions asked in the Financial Times this week concerning the return on ECUs and their relationship to the value of gold and dollars.

12.3 a.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) asked about the price that the European monetary cooperation fund would accept for the gold. This matter is still open to discussion. Only the initial arrangements have been agreed and most of the details have still to be worked out. It is likely that the price at which the fund will accept gold will be market-related—something between the old price of gold and the present variable market price. The matter has not yet been decided.
I wish to deal next with the arrangements for revision of the weights of currencies in the ECU basket. Here, too, we are faced with the difficulty that the

details have not been worked out, and there is not much that I can say beyond what is in the White Paper. That is that the weights of the currencies in the ECU will be re-examined and will be revised in accordance with what I said. That will be within six months after the entry into force of the system and thereafter every five years, or on request if the weight of any currency should change by 25 per cent. These matters are still open for decision or elaboration. Discussions will be starting next week and may continue on this for some considerable time.
I was then asked by a number of hon. Members about the definition of our exchange rate policy. That policy is to continue to keep the rate stable, as it has been over the past 18 months or so. The Government intend to attempt to maintain the level of stability that we have achieved.

Dr. Phipps: Is this not the nub of why we have not gone into the EMS? Is not that because we do not believe that we can keep our rate stable and that we intend in the future to use devaluation, as in the past, in order to pay for our deficits? We have become the banana republic of Europe, and is it not about time that we had the courage to get into the EMS and stick with it?

Mr. Sheldon: No. The intention is that stability will apply to our exchange rate with all our trading partners—the United States of America, the Community and other countries, too. The problem that we envisaged in the EMS was concerned with the technical arrangements and whether they could be permanently achieved. These details still have to be worked out. At present, they look rather more like the snake than was envisaged in the earlier meeting at Bremen.
The difficulties still remain. We hope that it will be possible for us to consider the operation of the system, and in this context I shall deal with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper), who assiduously attends these debates and puts his points of view very forcefully. He complained that we were not taking part in the EMS. I can assure my hon. Friend that we are. That gives us the right to influence its development, to play our part in that development and to argue that certain


lines of development ought not to take place if we consider that to be necessary.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does not my right hon. Friend accept that if Italy is to go in, and if the Irish, too, decide to enter, we shall have a very weak voice from the sidelines?

Mr. Sheldon: I do not think I can accept that. As a member of the EMS, we shall have the right to watch these developments, to comment on them and to obstruct if appropriate. We have to bear in mind that the Irish have not announced any change in their intentions yet, and we do not know whether they will. We are members of the EMS, but we are not members of the exchange rate regulation system.

Mr. Dykes: Is it accurate, to sum up, to say that although the Government are not part of the exchange rate mechanism, they are enthusiastic members of the EMS?

Mr. Sheldon: We are members of the EMS and happy to be so. My right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asked about legislation. Member States will be able to deposit reserves in the EMCF and it is likely to be on the basis of revolving swap arrangements. If it works out in that way, there will be no question of irreversibility of deposits, but this is for further discussion. It is unlikely that the other members of the EMS would wish to have irreversible deposits of reserves. But if for some reason it were to happen—as is most unlikely—that the deposits were irreversible, we should have to consider legislation.

Mr. Jay: Apart from the question of irreversibility, why should the Government have any more power to hand over reserves of this magnitude without legislation than they did in the case of the International Monetary Fund?

Mr. Sheldon: I am not sure about legislation, but I agree that there would need to be a debate in the House if any irreversible step were involved in the swap operation.

Division No. 26]
AYES
[12.13 a.m.


Allaun, Frank
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Campbell, Ian


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bates, Alf
Canavan, Donnis


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Cant, R. B.


Ashton, Joe
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Carmichael, Nell


Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)
Boardman, H.
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)
Cohen, Stanley


Bain, Mrs Margaret
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Coleman, Donald

Mr. Lawson: I understand that a swap arrangement does not need legislation. But when will the Government announce whether they intend to become involved in the ECU swap operation? Will there be a debate and vote in Parliament before a decison is taken?

Mr. Sheldon: I thought I had answered that. It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman wishes to waste the last minute that I have available in this debate. I have already said that these matters are to be discussed. If the deposits are not irreversible, there will be no problem because we can draw them out at any time we wish. However, if they did turn out to be irreversible, it would be wrong not to have a debate with a decision of the House on the matter.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) dealt with the subject of economic convergence. There are two aspects to consider here. The convergence of member States' economic growth is, of course, essential, in terms of the wider development of the Community. But we are not discussing this wider perspective. We are dealing with the more limited area of the stability of exchange rates and the convergence of inflation rates. Convergence alone is no solution to the problem related to exchange rates. For instance, the existence of North Sea oil will affect the level of exchange rates. Furthermore, the successful export performance of Germany also affects the level of its exchange rate. Therefore, the convergence of member States' inflation rates is only one consideration.
It being one and half hours after the commencement of Proceedings on the motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the proceedings, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted Business),

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 111, Noes

Concannon, Rt Hon John
Horam, John
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Richardson, Miss Jo


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cowans, Harry
Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Rowlands, Ted


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Judd, Frank
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Crawford, Douglas
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)


Cunningham, Dr J (Whiteh)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Snape, Peter


Davidson, Arthur
Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
McElhone, Frank
Stallard, A. W.


Deakins, Eric
McKay, Alan (Penistone)
Stoddart, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


Dempsey, James
McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Dormand, J. D.
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Mahon, Simon
Tinn, James


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Torney, Tom


English, Michael
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Flannery, Martin
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Watt, Hamish


Forrester, John
Molyneaux, James
Whitlock, William


George, Bruce
Morton, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Golding, John
Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Gould, Bryan
Noble, Mike
Woodall, Alec


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Oakes, Gordon
Woof, Robert


Hardy, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Young, David (Bolton E)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David



Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Park, George
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Henderson, Douglas
Parry, Robert
Mr. Ted Graham and


Home Robertson, John
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Mr. John Evans.


Hooley, Frank






NOES


Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Reid, George


Beith, A. J.
Jopling, Michael
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Roper, John


Brotherton, Michael
Lawson, Nigel
Shepherd, Colin


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Steel, Rt Hon David


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclifte)
Mather, Carol
Weatherill, Bernard


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mills, Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Dykes, Hugh
Morrison, Peter (Chester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Nelson, Anthony



Hicks, Robert
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hooson, Emlyn
Penhallgon, David
Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar and


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Dr. Colin Phipps.


Hurd, Douglas

Question accordingly agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/2790/1/78 on the European Cur-

rency Unit and the European Monetary Cooperation Fund; welcomes the Prime Minister's refusal to tie the United Kingdom to the European Monetary System of exchange rate control; and welcomes the views of the Prime Minister expressed in this House on 6th December last concerning the control by Government and Parliament of the economic and financial affairs of the nation.

COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY

12.25 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Gavin Strang): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/3126/78 on the Implications for the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Monetary System. 
The proposals we are considering deal with the way the Commission suggests that the instruments of the common agricultural policy should be adapted when a new European monetary system enters into force on 1st January. The reason why such an adaptation is necessary at all relates to the detailed functioning of the existing system of monetary compensatory amounts. It therefore involves highly technical questions, and I hope that the House will bear with me if I begin by a description of them because I think that this will contribute to a proper understanding of the purpose and effect of the Commission's proposals. 
I appreciate that such a description may be tedious to some hon. Members, but I believe that an accurate and, I hope, lucid statement of the position will be of benefit to the House and to others outside who take an interest in these matters. 
The support prices set under the common agricultural policy are expressed in units of account. Legally speaking, the unit of account is still defined in terms of gold, but this gold value is no longer of practical significance. The effective value of the unit of account in each of the currencies of the Community is given by the Council regulations. These lay down the rate of exchange for each currency with the unit of account. 
These rates, the so called representative or green rates, are not automatically adjusted as the currencies themselves fluctuate in value. Thus, the green rates do not reflect the market rates of exchange between Community currencies. Therefore, although there is now a single set of common prices set in units of account, the support prices applied in the various member countries are not equal compared at market rates of exchange. In fact, the common agricultural policy is now divided into seven different support price areas, with a gap of over 40

per cent. between the United Kingdom at the bottom and Germany at the top. 
If this situation were combined with complete free trade, the natural result would be that agricultural products from all over the Community would be attracted into Germany to take advantage of the support prices operated there. To prevent this happening and to allow market prices in each country to be broadly consistent with the level of support prices provided by the green rate, monetary compensatory amounts; are applied in trade. 
For the monetary compensatory amounts to operate effectively, they have to be linked with Community currencies in a way which allows them to alter with market exchange rates. There are a variety of ways in which this could be done. Since 1973, the link with currencies has been provided by the mechanism of the European joint float. This system has its own unit of account, the European monetary unit of account. Each member currency has a central rate in relation to this unit. These central rates therefore define the rates of exchange between the member currencies which are maintained within narrow margins on the exchange markets. 
The common agricultural policy makes use of the joint float by using the percentage differences between central rates of exchange with the European monetary unit of account and green rates of exchange to calculate monetary compensatory amounts. For countries which are not members of the joint float and, therefore, do not have central rates, the system provides, in effect, for market rates of exchange to be calculated. This is done by using exchange rates between their currencies and the currencies within the joint float. At present, Denmark is the one country that has a central rate of exchange which is the same as its green rate. It therefore applies no monetary compensatory amounts. Four countries—Germany and the Benelux countries—have central rates which are above their green rates. They apply monetary compensatory amounts as levies on their imports and payments on their exports—what we call positive MCAs. Four countries—Ireland, France, Italy and the United Kingdom—have market rates which are below their green rates. They apply monetary compensatory amounts


as levies on their exports and payments on their imports. 
Therefore, in all Community trade in the products covered by the MCA system, except trade with Denmark, two MCAs are applied, the MCA of the exporting country and that of the importing country. Taken together, the two MCAs cover the difference between the support prices for the product concerned in the two countries. 
Because the European monetary unit of account has been used as the means of calculating MCAs, it has also come to be regarded as the true measure of the value of common prices. In consequence, Denmark has tended to claim that, because she is the only country applying no MCAs, she is the only country applying the common price. For the same reason, the Council has usually followed the convention that any member could move its green rate towards its market or central rate with the European monetary unit of account, hence moving its prices towards Danish prices. But no one has ever been allowed to move its green rate away from its central or market rate. 
When the new European monetary system enters into force on 1st January, the European monetary unit of account will cease to exist. It is necessary, therefore, to find a new basis for calculating MCAs. This new basis will, like the European monetary unit of account, also be regarded as the measure of common prices. 
In the new European monetary system, the part played in the joint float by the European monetary unit of account is to be taken by the European currency unit, the ECU. The ECU is to have the same definition, initially at least, as the European unit of account, the EUA. As many hon. Members will recall, just over a year ago the Commission suggested that the EUA, as it contains all member currencies, would, in principle, be an appropriate unit to use for the common agricultural policy. It is natural, therefore, that it should propose that the ECU should take over the role of the European monetary unit of account in the CAP, just as it has in the monetary system itself. 
Changing from one unit of account to another as the basis for the calculation of

MCAs does not affect the level of support prices in national currencies. This depends entirely on the numerical value of common prices and the green rates used to convert them. Nor will it affect the total MCAs paid or levied in trade which depends on the difference between the support prices in the importing and the exporting country. But it can affect the point on the scale between the lowest-price country and the highest-price country which is regarded as being the common price. It can, therefore, affect the distribution of MCAs. Whether it in fact does so depends on the rate of conversion between the two units which is applied at the time of the changeover. 
Essentially, there are two ways in which the conversion rate could be determined. Either one could attempt to find the ideal common price—that is to say, the level of price towards which all member States should, ideally, move their national price—or the determination of the ideal common price could be left to the annual price negotiations, with the conversion between one unit to the other being made on the straightforward basis of the market exchange rate between them. 
This second method is the one that the Commission recommends. It has proposed, in the instruments we are considering tonight, to take the market exchange rate between the EUA and the European monetary unit of account as the conversion rate to be used to convert prices in units of account into prices in ECUs. It therefore proposes that 100 units of account should equal 121 ECUs. To prevent change in the nominal value of common prices affecting prices in national currencies, the Commission is proposing equivalent adjustment to all green rates. The effect of these changes, taken together, will be to preserve the existing distribution of MCAs, the existing levels of national prices and the existing common price. 
Shortly after making this proposal, the Commission also made clear, in a paper presented to the European Council, the way it believed the common price itself should evolve over the next few years. Its ideas are very close to our own. It wants to see support prices frozen next year and a rigorous price policy to continue as long as surpluses exist. 
The discussions in the European Council showed that this method of proceeding was a realistic one. It was clear from those discussions that no agreement could be reached on how the problem of the immediate impact on the CAP of the EMS should be resolved other than on a purely neutral basis. The Council concluded that the EMS should not of itself result in any change in national prices or the distribution of MCAs. 
The Commission's proposal achieves this objective and puts the MCA system from 1st January on a firm legal basis. If the EMS develops into an equitable and durable system, it should be a better and more representative basis than the one which has operated hitherto. It is to this question of the representative nature of the unit of account that the amendment to the motion refers. 
I look forward to hearing the views of the House both on the Commission's proposal and on the amendment, but it may be helpful if I make clear now that the Government are happy to accept the amendment.

12.37 a.m.

Mr. Michael Jopling: We are grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for coming to the House at this late hour after such momentous events to explain what he described as highly technical matters which arise with regard to the common agricultural policy from the establishment from 1st January next of the European monetary system.
We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining a good deal of the background. I hope that I shall not be giving away some of the matters discussed through the usual channels if I say that we are also grateful to the Government for agreeing to split this debate from the previous one, because it covers a very different area. We are happy that the Government agreed to our request to discuss the agricultural implications of the EMS separately. It is important that we should have a separate debate because it is right to remind ourselves that the CAP absorbs over two-thirds of the whole of the Community budget. It is right, therefore, that it should have our special attention.
The hon. Gentleman has given us some answers, but because the EMS is such a new matter which in some aspects, par-

ticularly the agricultural, is still in the process of being worked out, I guess that there will be many questions tonight, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will muster them all and that we shall give him enough time to reply adequately.
First, I comment on the European currency unit—ECU. That is the basis of the EMS itself. We are told that it will be identical in value to the European unit of account—EUA—at least at the outset. We have always supported a move to the so-called basket of European currencies being used as the basis for agricultural trade. We therefore support the move to the ECU, knowing that it will be based on the basket through the EUA.
There is, however, one phrase in the statement which has been issued as a result of the meeting of the Council when the EMS was agreed to which I wish to refer, and that is the phrase to the effect that the value of the ECU at the outset will be the same as that of the EUA. We must have an explanation from the Government of the way they see this matter developing. I hope that we shall not see the Commission come with great plans early on to change this method of valuing the ECU to any other basis than that of the basket of currencies.
We should also like to know what the position will be for countries such as Ireland and the United Kingdom if we find ourselves outside the EMS. Does this mean that countries which are not fully participating in the EMS will be prone to find that the ECU is no longer identical in value to the EUA? I can envisage problems arising from that.
Another important matter will arise over the change in currencies of the poorer nations, as we have to describe ourselves and Ireland at this stage. I understand that there has been a suggestion, especially from the Germans, that the currency levels of the poorer nations are likely to be frozen as from 1st January next in the calculation of the ECU. I know that these matters are now being discussed and worked out, but it would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary could apply himself at the end of the debate to these important matters.
I wish to refer to the implication for the common agricultural policy of introducing ECU, which, as the Parliamentary Secretary has told us, is valued at 21


per cent. lower than the agricultural unit of account which we have been used to dealing with.
Most of us. in looking forward to taking part in this debate, will have seen some of the diagrams produced showing that the breadth of MCA percentages will be considerably narrowed as a result of moving to the ECU. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the fact that the span between the highest currency, that of Germany, and ours, at the lower end, stands at 41·6 per cent. but that when we move to the ECU, when the United Kingdom MCA percentage will drop from minus 30·8 to minus 6, we shall see the spread of MCA percentages drop to 31·7 per cent.
That is on the figures I saw quoted in Farmers Weekly recently. That implies that the spread of MCA percentages will drop on 1st January by about 25 per cent. While that narrows the gap and is welcome for that reason, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what effect it will have on the total cost of operating MCAs within the Community budget.
I know that to some extent the question I ask is hypothetical, because it is proposed to introduce coefficients which will tend to take things back to the position we are in now, but it would be helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary could tell us what will be the impact on the total Community budget of operating MCAs under the ECU system rather than the present system.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way, because I think he has got to the heart of the significance of this matter, although I do not necessarily agree with his calculations. He mentioned diagrams, which, of course, would be helpful. I do not think that they appear with the draft regulations or the explanatory memorandum. Will the hon. Gentleman be good enough to tell the House, because it would be useful to other people who are trying to fathom this extremely complicated matter, where they are and whether they are authoritative?

Mr. Jopling: One of the diagrams appears in Agra Europe of 8th December and the other on page 60 of Farmers

Weekly of the same date. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary understood the question I was putting to him about what will be the total cost of running the MCA system to the whole Community budget as a result of moving to the ECU system.
I understand that the coefficients constitute a formula for maintaining the status quo with regard to the common agricultural policy as it is now. We could see serious disadvantages arising for all countries if the coefficients were not introduced. For instance, without the coefficient system there would be a fall of 21 per cent. in Germany's agricultural prices. We can get into a muddle between 21 per cent. and 17 per cent., because it all depends on what it is a percentage of. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not trip me up if I say 21 per cent. and, by a different method of making the calculation, it conies to 17 per cent. I see the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) nodding his head in agreement; it looks as though he has experienced this problem.
In regard to Germany, we are in favour of drastically curtailing prices in some of the high-priced sectors and in areas of the Community where large surpluses are being produced at prices which are miles higher than the British farmer enjoys. Clearly, it is not a practical possibility to reduce prices in Germany by 21 per cent., and the coefficients have to be used. As we in Britain have an MCA percentage of minus 6 per cent., this would provide far too little leeway. We should be able to devalue the green pound then by only 6 per cent. before we reached common prices. Any further devaluations would not provide us with further opportunity to use the green pound to achieve prices to which Conservative Members believe that British agriculture is entitled.
The burning question is, how does all this change the British Government's policy to devalue the green pound from time to time? Will it be more convenient for a British Government so to do after 1st January than it is now? Conservative Members have said consistently that British farmers were promised that they would be able to have fair competition with their European counterparts when we joined the Community, but for


a variety of reasons this has not happened. We have made it clear on several occasions that we think that British farmers should be able to compete on fair terms with their counterparts in the rest of the Community.
That can be done partly by green pound devaluations, by bringing our prices up to the European levels. It is my belief, however, that this could also be done partly by bringing down some of the high prices in other parts of the Community to our levels. Therefore, what I ask the Government to consider is whether we might use the coefficients in the future in order to try to bring down the prices of some of the countries in the Community which are producing huge surpluses. Could this not be done by seeking to reduce the coefficient to a figure below 1·21, at which it is proposed to fix it?
Whilst we see absolutely the need to use the coefficients at the outset, we believe that we should aim to achieve a degree of reduction in their levels in the years ahead. This would serve a dual purpose in giving us an opportunity to increase our prices here through green pound devaluations while at the same time reducing over-high prices in other countries in the Community, provided, of course, that they revalued their green rates at the same time.
As things stand now, it could be of considerable benefit to us if we were to do this, and it would certainly do a great deal, if we were to use the coefficients in this way, to control the surpluses which currently are bedevilling agricultural policy in Europe. If we could look forward to the coefficient being reduced over the years ahead from the figure of 1·21, together with the appropriate green currency changes, that would be something at which it would be worth while to aim.
As I have said, these matters are currently being worked out. They are still somewhat vague. It may be that, as things turn out, my suggestion may not be of practical use. However, I throw it out as an immediate reaction. I should be grateful if the Government would consider it. In our view, it is certainly a practical way to get prices down in the high-cost areas where the surpluses are being built up.
I now ask about a number of other matters. I must ask the Parliamentary Secretary about the position of the nonparticipating countries. I have already referred to Ireland and the United Kingdom. We have all been fascinated by the fact that within the last two days there has been a tremendous change in the attitude of Italy. Do the Government have any reason to believe that some sort of private deal has been offered by the strong currency members of the Community which has allowed Italy to change its mind so dramatically?
I must also ask the Parliamentary Secretary another question, which I hope he will not merely say is hypothetical. We shall not have another chance of discussing these matters for quite some weeks. If within the next very few weeks there is a similar change of attitude in Ireland and Ireland decides, like Italy, that she is able to join the EMS, that will present this country with tremendous problems, particularly concerning Northern Ireland.
I imagine that if Ireland were to join the EMS Britain could find herself with a very large, increased bill to support the employment subsidies in Northern Ireland which the Government have been applying, which is a consequence of the differing green rates between Ireland and the United Kingdom. That could present us with huge difficulties before the House meets again. It would be helpful if we knew the implications for us if Ireland joined the EMS.
We are disappointed that we have had to stand outside the EMS. Again, we feel that great moves are being made in Europe to achieve the goals in which many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe. We are concerned that as long as we stand outside the EMS new developments may take place within the Community over which we shall have less influence than if we were members of the EMS.
Last week showed dramatically that this country has become one of the poor men of Europe. What emerged from the Heads of Government meeting the week before last clearly showed that this country has become one of the poor men of Europe. Labour Members must know that it was a more eloquent statement of the Government's failure than anything we have seen for a very long time. I hope that we shall


soon be able to reverse this decision and to play our full part in the EMS. Perhaps the earlier events of this evening will be a first step, to be followed by a more resounding second step at 10 o'clock tomorrow night, cowards a change in the fortunes of this country.

12.56 a.m.

Mr. Bryan Gould: beg to move, at the end of the Question, to add
 but urges Her Majesty's Government in discussing the application of the European Monetary System to the Common Agricultural Policy to press for the adoption of a more representative unit for the expression of common agricultural prices ".
As the two Front Bench spokesmen have said, this matter is extremely complex. But, as is so often the case with Common Market affairs, the highly technical nature of the subject conceals its importance both of substance and of presentation.
Perhaps the only beneficial effect of the EMS is that the new unit of account—the ECU, which is at the heart of the system —will henceforth be used as the unit of account for CAP prices. That is a welcome move in the direction of common sense, because the old unit of account, which was based on the snake, had become unrepresentative. As the snake currencies moved up in value, the unit of account become over-valued in terms of CAP prices and other currencies. The new unit of account, based on the basket of EEC currencies, will, in my view, reveal more clearly and accurately the true structure of CAP prices.
Unfortunately, the Commission has proposed two draft regulations which will have the effect of nullifying this advantageous development.

Mr. John Roper: My hon. Friend said that the regulations would nullify the effect of this advantageous development. Is there a difference between the immediate compensation and the long-range trends? Surely, the fact that the system is now based on the whole basket of currencies will ensure that further distortions do not take place.

Mr. Gould: I assure my hon. Friend that I shall be dealing with that point

later in what I hope will be a short speech.
As has been explained, the Commission proposes that coefficients should be used in respect of common prices and representative rates to ensure that no change occurs. If we agree to these proposals, we thereby lose the great advantage, which I shall explain, of moving to a more representative unit of account.
What freedom of action and decision do we still retain on this matter? Are we free to reject these proposals, or was some form of assent given to them in Brussels last week? If we have already assented in some form to these proposals, of what duration are they? Are they permanent in effect or do they have some limited life?
It is clear that if the new unit of account were to be used and substituted for the old unit of account the effect would be to reduce common prices, I was about to say by 21 per cent., but the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) rightly pointed out that it should probably be 17 per cent., since that is the difference between the value of the ECU and the old EMUA.
It is probably, although regrettably, unrealistic to expect other Common Market countries to accept overnight, as it were, a substantial reduction in the level of common prices of that sort. But that is not in itself an argument for accepting these coefficients, because there is nothing in the new unit of account and its use as a means of expressing common prices which would necessarily affect the level of national prices. All that would have to be done to maintain national prices would be that the representative rates and the monetary compensatory amounts would have to be recalculated.
This would have a very important presentational effect, which the Commission itself points out in its document. If common prices were expressed in terms of the new unit of account but the Germans wished to maintain national prices as they are at the moment, they would have to do so by recalculating the representative rate for the green mark. If they did that they would maintain their national price, but it would then emerge, as the Commission itself points out, that the green mark would be out of line to the


extent of 25·7 per cent. rather than 10·8 per cent. as it appears at the moment.
On exactly the same basis, our own green pound—a subject on which we have suffered so many attacks from the Conservative Party over the last few years—far from being 30·8 per cent. out of line, as it appears at present, would be only 6 per cent. out of line. Indeed, every other country, with the exception of Italy, would be more out of line with the true level of common prices than we are, and we should be the only country using green rates to hold prices below the common level of prices, whereas every other country would be shown to be using green rates to push prices above the common price.
This presentational change, which would not alter national prices at all, or do anyone any harm, would nevertheless have the inestimable advantage of demonstrating quite clearly who is responsible for pushing up common agricultural prices, and who is responsible for creating ever-growing surpluses. It would also dispose once and for all of the nonsense, which we hear repeated over and over again, that in some way we in this country are receiving substantial subsidies from the CAP fund, in some way through the operation of monetary compensatory amounts.
If we could use the new units of account without the coefficients suggested by the Commission, we should hear no more of the sort of charge levelled by the Danes earlier last week, and by the European Commission, in which they accused the Prime Minister of getting his figures wrong in his Guildhall speech and said that his figures on this country's contribution to the budget should be seen in the light of a £500 million subsidy through monetary compensatory amounts. Under the system which I think ought to he applied, we should then see monetary compensatory amounts for exactly what they are, namely, a subsidy from EEC funds to inefficient producers who wish to hold their prices higher than the common price level.
But if we were to resist the Commission proposals and simply express CAP prices in terms of the new unit of account, the changes would not just be presentational. I am sorry that my hon. Friend

the Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper) has left the Chamber, because I am about to deal with the point that he raised with me. In the longer term, the use of the new unit of account without the coefficients would, in my view, have a real effect on the development of CAP price levels.
The Commission's stated objective is, as we all know, to eliminate and phase out the use of green currencies. But if it could be demonstrated, as it would be if we were to use the new unit of account, that green currencies were used by every country, except ours, to push prices up—that these were a means of bringing prices up rather than pulling them down—the Commission's stated objective of phasing out green currencies would have the entirely beneficial effect of reducing a common price level. As that is also the stated objective of the British Government, and if we are serious in trying to secure this objective, it is difficult to see why we are not opposing the Commission's proposals this evening.
The use of the ECU would have the salutary effect of forcing the Common Market Agriculture Ministers to come clean on what they are doing about price levels under the CAP. They would no longer be able to shelter behind movements in the exchange rate, especially behind the upward movement in the value of the mark, to do the work of increasing prices for them. They would no longer be able to agree to relatively small increases in common price levels and then, because most of them under the present system have green currencies that hold prices lower, devalue their green currencies to secure greater real price increases. That would have a long-term effect of holding down CAP prices.
It is not only the level of common prices that is producing surpluses. It is the real price that is paid to the farmer in each individual country that is producing the surpluses. As long as we have a system that allows most national Governments to increase prices nationally to a higher degree than is permitted by the common price level, we shall have ever-increasing surpluses.
There is surely no reason for Britain to accept the Commission's proposals which would deny the logic and the equity of


using a new and more representative unit of account. The maintenance of a fiction would encourage ever higher CAP prices and would mean that we were placed unfairly in the dock. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us what action the Government propose to take and what freedom they still retain to take a national view of these problems.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: It has been an interesting debate. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) is moving towards accepting that we are in the Community and that there is a real need to accept some of the measures that the Commission has brought forward. I welcome that. The hon. Gentleman's speech was responsible. It was not part of the battle being fought all over again to get us out of the Community. The hon. Gentleman appeared to accept reality and seemed to be seeking to make improvements to the Commission's proposals. I go along with him quite a long way. His comments were a welcome change from the views that have been expressed by other anti-Marketeers.
We have missed an opportunity again as a country. It is sad to see us once again dragging our feet. Britain—especially the Government—is like someone swimming in a pool with a great weight tied to his feet. We are in the European pool, whether we like it or not. Unfortunately, the Government have heavy lead weights attached to their legs as they swim in the pool. It is the anti-Marketeers who are fighting the battle all over again. However, for the first time the hon. Member for Southampton, Test indicated that he is slowly coming to accept these matters.
I believe the House will accept that if EMS produces stability for agriculture, that is to be welcomed. I am no expert on these matters, but, surely, stability would come about if we had EMS. That is why I am sorry that we have missed this opportunity.
The agriculture industry would welcome stability. At least, it would know where it was. We want MCAs to be dealt with, but they must be stabilised. Those who import feedingstuffs would know where they are. Stability would be there. The gap would be narrowed without agriculture being brought back to the

same unsatisfactory position as the pound started to fall. There is not much point in devaluing and trying to close that gap if the pound drops. Stability and EMS would lead to common prices. That is needed desperately in the Community. It would mean that products would be produced in the areas most suitable for that production. If we move into EMS, there will be fairness. British farmers feel strongly that the situation is unfair at present. Stability would come if we fully participated in EMS.
What will be the effect of EMS on this year's agricultural price review? It will be an interesting price review. The correction factor brings us back to square one and we shall not get the basket that most of us want. Most people agree that end prices in the price review must reflect consumption. That, and prudent intervention, will lead to bringing surpluses under control.
If we are to have an influence, we must be better Europeans. We must be pro-Europe to achieve the changes that are necessary. But we have a Minister who is anti-Europe, anti-CAP and, in some sense, anti-producers. That does not create the climate necessary to achieve what we need. We must have a European attitude. We must be seen to be pro-European to gain the necessary co-operation.
The Government have shown that they are not that way inclined. They are trying to swim in the European pool with an enormous weight dragging them down and stopping them from co-operating because some Labour Members are still fighting to get out of the Community. Of course, they will fail.
I agree with the argument about using co-efficients to adjust prices. That is worth looking into. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on drawing that to the attention of the House.
The Irish situation cannot be left as it is. I believe that the Republic will receive the aid that it requires to join the EMS. In a few weeks' time it will go in, after Italy's decision this week. This leaves us in a difficult position. The export of meat from Southern Ireland to this country will be unfair—far more unfair than it is today. We should have a clear explanation about the Irish situation. We


must have a clear answer from the Minister about the Irish situation. I refer not only to Northern Ireland producers, but to producers here.
Once more, I believe that we have missed the chance. It is a sad reflection on the Government, who are always just putting their toes into Europe but are never prepared to go in fully to contribute. I hope the day will soon come when we have a Government who are prepared to be a real partner in Europe. Only then shall we get the changes that are so necessary.

1.16 a.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devon, West (Mr. Mills), because he addresses the House in such an apparently reasonable way. I have high hopes that one day he will travel the road to Damascus and see that things are not as he imagines. The hon. Gentleman made some remarkable statements. He addressed many of his remarks to the principle of EMS. He says that it will lead to stability. Surely he is aware that all the economists, even the German ones, realise that exchange rate stability is as much a reflection of other factors in nations' economies as it is the result of trying to tie them together by some mathematical formula.
One aspect of this which has not been mentioned in our debates—and I wonder to what extent it has an effect—is that large sums of money are sent round the world. There has been an electronic revolution among exchange rate dealers in the City who can now be plugged into Tokyo, New York and all the other exchanges in the flash of an eye. I wonder whether some of the instability in world money markets is not contributed to by the rapidity of communication. That is possible.
The hon. Gentleman said that common prices were desperately needed in the EEC. But German prices are about 40 per cent. above ours. The mean price, at exchange rate level, of food and agricultural produce on the mainland of the EEC is at least 30 per cent. higher than here. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously advocating that wholesale agriculture prices in this country should rise by such a percentage? That is the only conclusion to be drawn from his remarks. It is an

extraordinary statement to come from any Member of Parliament who represents producers and consumers.
The hon. Gentleman spoke also of imported feedingstuffs. He said that he wanted to get rid of the green currencies. Hansard for 9th November shows the common levy on milled maize, a most important constituent of imported feedingstuffs, to be £65 a tonne. But the hon. Gentleman and other British farmers have to pay only £41, thanks to the green pound. A few years ago the hon. Gentleman would have regarded even £41 as extraordinary and unacceptable.
The hon. Gentleman says that we should be pro-European and show ourselves to be in favour of what is happening. Then, he says, we shall get some changes.
The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was so much in favour of going into the Common Market that he negotiated nothing except the transitional terms. He did not change the Treaty of Rome one iota, and I do not think he changed any aspect of the common agricultural policy. Yet nobody could be more pro-Market than the right hon. Gentleman. If the hon. Member for Devon, West advocates such a policy, I can only say that we do not have a very fortunate example from the past.
The regulation before us is R/3126/78, but the explanatory memorandum says that there are two regulations. One of them, no doubt, will reach the Council of Agriculture Ministers in due course, having been discussed by the European Assembly. The second proposal has not to go before the Assembly because it arises under article 103.
I hope that the Minister will tell us more about this. If the coefficient scheme is to be set up, as it has to be, on 1st January, what difference will sending the second document to the Assembly make? Even if the Assembly comments on it, I presume that the machinery will be in place. Is this being done just to get matters right? Where there is no time to canvass the Assembly's view, it would be possible for the Commission to spring other surprises on us and to use article 103 in a similar way.
There are probably only a dozen people in the country who understand these matters. Each time I turn to this


subject I have to start from scratch. I could not follow everything said by the Minister. Only a bold Member would claim that he has this issue at his fingertips. I suspect that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould) is virtually in that position, but few others in the House can match him, though I leave out of account my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture. I suspect that matters of this kind are discussed at Heads of Government meetings. The horse-trading that takes place at those meetings must involve questions relating to the CAP. I doubt whether this is the way to run the Community.
I wish to ask the Minister about the power of a member State to devalue unilaterally, because I am not sure that I understand the present position. My hon. Friend said that there were seven price systems within the Community. He said that their freedom to devalue or revalue is related to the difference of their prices compared with the central rates.
I tabled a Question on this subject and it was answered on Tuesday 12th December. I asked whether the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food would
 tabulate in the Official Report the weighted average increase of EEC prices of commodities covered by the common agricultural policy since 1st April 1978 and those increases in each member State arising from respective revaluation of green currencies on or after that date.
In other words, while people at large believe that the common agricultural prices are set annually by the annual review, one must look at the two-decker position here. On top of the annual review, one must add the degree of devaluation of other member States. The reply from the Minister of State was:
 Changes in representative—' green '—rates agreed at the same time caused an offsetting fall of 0·23 per cent. in national support prices in the Federal Republic of Germany and further increases of 7·61 per cent. for pig-meat and 3·.73 per cent. for all other sectors in France, 5·29 per cent. in Italy, and 6·38 per cent. in Ireland.
It appears that there were considerable increases in these countries over and above those agreed by the Council of Agriculture Ministers. Indeed, the final sentence of the answer says:
 This produces an overall weighted average increase of about 4½ per cent."—[Official

Report, 12th December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 162.]
This is possible only because of the difference from central rates. I suspect that the ability to depart from those central rates is much less if one uses the ECU pure than if one uses the ECU coefficient.

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend is correct. The only country that could use green rates, or the devaluation of green rates, to produce a price increase, if we were to use the ECU, would be this country. The option would not be available to any other country.

Mr. Spearing: That makes my hon. Friend's case even stronger. It means that by accepting ECU coefficients—and our amendment presses the Government not to do that—we shall lose a very valuable means of checking the increases in prices in other countries by the devaluation formula. Here we have the opportunity to keep prices down, and it seems that we do not intend to use it. However, in view of the complexity of these matters, I am not altogether surprised that we might have lost an opportunity.
I hope that the Minister will say, in accepting the motion, that he will take the opportunity at the next Agriculture Council meeting—I presume that there will be one before the regulation is accepted—to press the case that my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test and I are making. Even if the Minister cannot take it all the way, he will at least be able to point out to all those who claim to be subsidising consumers in this country not only that this is not the case, but that in real terms it is not Britain that is out of step but the Community. If he feels driven to accept this coefficient adjustment, he will be able to tell them, as I am sure he will in any case, that the mere fact of having to accept the coefficient is an admission of this truth. I hope that our amendment will enable him to force that home good and hard.
Some of the people at that Council may well not have quite understood this point, as many people a year ago had not understood the phenomenon of the burst snake, as some of us called it when we managed to unearth it. The snake will have disappeared from 1st January, and we have to substitute the ECU. It is a curious beast, and the ECU coefficient is even more curious.
The CAP is a complex enough mechanism in physical terms, with the import levies, export restitutions, intervention buying and all the mechanics of centres of demand and transport costs that go with it. We are now adding to it an enormous and complex financial operation which is related to the common prices. We have the pound sterling, the ECU coefficient rate, the ECU pure and the basket, from which it is all derived. That basket can vary by 2½ per cent. each way before changes are triggered off.
I wonder how anyone, even in the Ministry, can keep up with this. I am sure that farmers, even with the help of Farmers Weekly, must find themselves baffled, if we in the House who try to keep up with these matters do. I find myself baffled on occasions, and I have to start from scratch every time this wretched business comes up. In the organisation of the CAP we are reaching a stage where it is a disgrace not only physically but mathematically.
The hon. Members for Devon, West and Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) claim that the EEC is democratic. But for it to be a democracy it must have, to use an EEC term, transparency. This matter is not at all transparent, and therefore there are opportunities for things to go wrong without people understanding that they are going wrong. I hope that that will not happen, but I fear that it will.
That is yet another reason why we must get rid of the CAP and put in its place something much better which is not only transparent but enables a proper balance to be achieved between consumers and producers in the EEC. This system, coefficient and all, makes it vastly more complicated. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will resist it in the Council of Ministers.

1.33 a.m.

Mr. Strang: We have had a useful, if short, debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) has just said, this is, indeed, a very complex issue, as the debate has shown.
I emphasise that changing from one unit of account to another as the basis of calculating the MCAs does not in itself alter common prices as expressed in national currencies, nor does it alter the magnitude of the MCAs. If the ECU

were to be introduced without any correction coefficient the total difference between the German and United Kingdom prices—the United Kingdom-German MCA—would continue to be about 40 per cent. of the United Kingdom price. Under the scheme that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) suggested, about 34 per cent. of the MCA would be the positive German MCA, with a remaining 8 per cent. which would be our MCA. Secondly, our power to devalue is, as matters stand, unaltered by the EMS and these proposals. I hope that I shall have a chance to refer to this later.
It is true that the European Council reaffirmed the objective of phasing out MCAs. That has always been the philosophy of the Community and the Commission. But it is also true that the European Council made it absolutely clear that any policy of phasing out would have to have some relationship to the actual common price. The United Kingdom Government have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that there can be no question of phasing out MCAs with the common price set at its present level.
The question of Ireland has been raised. If Ireland joins the EMS and we do not, the relationship between the United Kingdom and Ireland will become the same as the relationship between the United Kingdom and France, or between France and Italy. The effect from the first day under the current proposals would be zero in that the MCA on trade between the United Kingdom and Ireland would remain the same. One cannot predict how that relationship would develop, since it would depend on the movement of the currencies, with the United Kingdom outside the EMS, and on the corresponding size of the MCA. Fears have been expressed about the size of the MCA and the subsidy on CAP products crossing the border in Ireland.
I should like to turn to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Gould), which is a crucial issue. He accepts that there is no way in which this alteration can change overnight the prices paid in national currencies. But the decision to maintain the present distribution of MCAs and to implement the scheme in a way that maintains the status quo means that in practice the redistribution of MCAs which


could have taken place will not immediately occur.
It is worth bearing in mind that if we had done as my hon. Friend suggested this would have had an immediate effect on the prices paid to Commonwealth producers of sugar. It just so happens that these prices are determined by the common price converted at the market rate. These prices to ACP producers would have been reduced by the redistribution of MCAs. Similarly, the price of New Zealand butter is calculated on that basis, so the redistribution of MCAs would have affected that price.
Also, if we moved overnight to a system whereby almost all the member States would require a significant increase in the common price in order to lift their national prices at any price fixing, that would lead to more pressure on the common price at each price fixing. My hon. Friend is basing his case entirely on the fact that this redistribution of MCAs would bring out more clearly and more transparently, to use his word, that there is no question of the United Kingdom being, in practice, the odd man out. But my argument is that the crucial issue is the average of prices paid for agricultural products in the Community. That is what will determine the rate of production, and that is what matters in the real world.

Mr. Gould: But under the present system, which is being retained by the Commission's proposals, the real increase in prices can be fudged by national Governments, who can pay lip-service to the principle of keeping down common prices but push up real prices by devaluing their green currencies which, under the present system, are shown to be substantially over-valued when compared with what they should be. If we abandoned that system and went to the one which would obtain with the ECU without a coefficient, Common Market farm Ministers would be put to the test and they would have to accept price increases only to the extent to which they could get them on the common price.

Mr. Strang: I accept that, but in practice the important questions would be, first, what happened to the various green rates, and, secondly, what happened to the common price. The success that we

would be likely to have in the future in holding down the common price might be less than it is likely to be with the present distribution of MCAs and that might in practice, in the years ahead—and we shall never know the answer—be just as likely to generate price increases as the alternative of being able to devalue one's currency—as Ireland, Italy, France and the United Kingdom can do in a very big way at the moment—and so increase national prices although there is no change in the common price.
I know that we shall not resolve this argument tonight, but it is a very important tactical and practical one.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test welcomes the change in the sense that the ECU is a more representative unit than the EMUA. I am not surprised about that, because my hon Friend was among the first—if not the first—in this House to point out the basic weakness in the use of the snake in relation to the common agricultural policy. The reason why we are accepting his amendment is that after 1st January we shall have a unit of account which is more representative.
I make one final comment about the redistribution of the MCAs. We have to bear in mind the reality of the position. Even if the British Government had favoured the course of action which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test advocated, that would, given the context of one member Government in a Community of Nine seeking to block a change which in practice was to maintain the status quo, have given rise to legal questions about what was meant by "status quo ". Secondly, if a Government blocked a regulation so that there was a vacuum on 1st January, there would arise questions about what was likely to happen in the complex world of the CAP and the trade which takes place between member countries within that framework.
As I see it, the fundamental issue remains unchanged, and again I think that I am in complete agreement with my hon. Friends. It is that the enormous cost of the CAP, the enormous misuse of resources inherent in these very large surpluses—that is where the big cost of the CAP comes from—can be ended only by restraint on common prices.
It is, therefore, encouraging to read the report of the Commission to the European Council in which it has firmly committed itself to a rigid price policy and, indeed, has undertaken to bring forward proposals in the forthcoming price fixing which will represent a general freeze on common prices. My hon. Friend seemed to imply that that did not amount to much, but it represents quite a substantial movement in the position of the Commission, a movement for which I think the Government can claim some credit.
The United Kingdom Government have been in the van, quite naturally, because of our own national interest predominantly but also because we are in a position to make a more objective appraisal of the real interests of the Community in this context, in advocating this policy. The Commission has now endorsed it, not only in principle but in practice, in relation to bringing forward a general price freeze in the forthcoming price negotiations. Of course, the Government will fight to hold on to that common price freeze.

Mr. Jopling: Would not the case that the British Government make in the negotiations in the future be backed by reminding ourselves that, over the last two years, the Opposition also have given support to minimal price increases in the annual Community price arrangements?

Mr. Strang: No, I do not think that I could accept the hon. Gentleman's claim, in that I do not accept that the Opposition have been advocating restraint in common prices for two years. Indeed, I think that that attitude has emerged relatively recently. Earlier this year the Opposition were asking that the MCAs should be phased out completely, and tonight the hon. Gentleman was almost harking back to that policy. But I accept that he made the additional point that the Opposition agreed with the Government and the Commission that the common price levels are too high.
I do not know who promised the British farmers that they would be competing on fair terms with Community farmers, and I do not know the view the farmers took at that time of the prevailing level of common prices. But what I do know is that the Government continue to take the view that the right policy for British agriculture is to seek to fix our prices at a

level which gives the industry a fair return for its labour and investment and enables it to make a growing contribution to the national economy, but does not provide high prices which would promote increased production at a cost which could not be justified in the context of the efficient use of our national resources.
Of course, we have to strike a balance between the interests of the consumers and those of the producers in this country, and we do that, by and large, by devaluing the green pound when appropriate. As my right hon. Friend confirmed last week at Smithfield, that continues to be the Government's policy. That policy is not altered by the technical measures which we are discussing this evening. It has to be fully understood that that is the price that we are paying as a consequence of the CAP and its surpluses. When we talk about the reform of the CAP, the arguments will not be significantly altered in any way by the changes that we are making in EMS.
The fundamental weakness of the CAP is that prices are set too high. We have also to accept that the producers who are producing at too high prices, and producing, on average, less efficiently, are those in the Community countries which have the highest prices.
So, if we are to achieve reform of the CAP, the central objective must be to reduce the level of prices on average in the Community. In practice that can only be done, I believe, by holding down prices and allowing inflation to erode, as it were, the attractiveness of those prices to the producers.
I do not believe that it is practical politics to expect a member Government to agree to an immediate cut in prices for their producers, certainly not a Government who are dependent electorally to a significant degree on support from agricultural producers and others associated with agriculture.
We have to strive to hold down these prices. Prices have been rising throughout the Community. The common price has been rising, and, more crucially, the average price throughout the Community has been rising. We have to strive to avoid that, to reduce the level of surplus production and thus to reduce the cost of the CAP.
I have not dealt with a number of small points made by hon. Members, but


I am anxious to pick up, in conclusion, one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing), who asked about the two regulations before us. I think he recognises that the first is temporary, so that something can be in place on 1st January without the European Assembly having had to consider the issue.
The second regulation is permanent and is the sensible way to do it, but, under the Treaty of Rome, it cannot be implemented without consultation. I emphasise "consultation" because my hon. Friend almost implied—and he would be the last person to imply it—that the European Assembly can somehow change it. It is only a question of consultation, so in practice it is not a point which should concern him too much.
I hope that I have given the House a sufficient explanation of the Government's stance on this issue. Decisions have still to be taken, at the Council of Agriculture Ministers next week, at the Council of Finance Ministers, again next week, and it has been agreed that if the EMS comes into operation there will be a review of the ECU, of the weighting of the countries in the ECU, in six months' time. So, one cannot predict with accuracy how things will develop over the next six or 12 months. It has not been possible to predict how things could have gone in the last two or three days. Only tonight we had the decision of the Italian Parliament to endorse the Italian Government's decision to join the EMS. We cannot predict the future, but it is fair to say that the Government's stance, as reflected by our acceptance of the amendment, is one which commands the support of the House generally.

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of EEC Document No. R/3126/78 on the Implications for the Common Agricultural Policy of the European Monetary System, ' but urges Her Majesty's Government in discussing the application of the European Monetary System to the Common Agricultural Policy to press for the adoption of a more representative unit for the expression of common agricultural prices.

BRISTOL EAST LOOP ROAD

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. [Mr. John Evans.]

1.55 a.m.

Mr. Terry Walker: I make no apology for raising this debate on the Bristol East loop road, even though it is nearly 2 o'clock in the morning after a very long and eventful day.
There have been 12 years of indecision, first by the former Gloucestershire county council and now by Avon county council, over the final route of the Bristol East fringe loop road from Downend to Hanham, which has caused and is still causing tremendous problems in my constituency. These years of indecision must now be ended. That is why the matter is now very urgent.
The first priority of the loop road was to provide direct access to the M4 and M5 for Bristol East and Bristol South-East by way of the M32 at Downend. When this was not provided when the motorway was first constructed, it put a tremendous burden on the present road structure in the Kingswood constituency which was totally inadequate for this volume of traffic and was never meant to take it. The roads in the villages of Downend and Mangotsfield have been completely overrun with traffic, much of which is very heavy lorries and juggernauts. The refusal by the Department of Transport to allow another intersection to the M4 at Pucklechurch direct to the Pucklechurch trading estate has meant that heavy traffic going to this trading estate comes off the motorway on to the M32 and has to go through the densely populated roads of Downend and Mangotsfield before going by way of Shortwood village to Pucklechurch.
Mangotsfield village has become a very dangerous place, because these heavy lorries sweep through the village at all times of day and night, and some 2,000 children walk to and from two comprehensive schools and two junior schools along these minor roads daily. We have had demonstrations by residents about the imminent dangers to life and limb. In addition, there are the


noise and pollution caused by this volume of traffic., and even the surfaces of the roads seem to be impaired by it. There are many uneven patches on these surfaces, and in some places they are, dangerous.
I know that the Department of Transport has always set its face against further consideration of providing an intersection at Pucklechurch. It probably has very good reasons for doing so, but I wish that the matter could be reconsidered. I fully recognise that it may not be practicable but it would be a great help to my constituents if the intersection were provided and much of the heavy traffic that now goes to the Pucklechurch trading estate did not have to come to my constituency at all. That would result in a more peaceful existence for the residents of Downend and Mangotsfield.
The principle of the loop road was established way back in 1965. I understand that the Avon county transport programme has now at long last been lodged with the Department but that the final line of the road in some places has not yet been established. Can the Minister confirm this? Has Avon indicated to him when this will be done? I understand that the Avon county council has accepted the loop road as the only solution to the problems of traffic movements to the east of Bristol and to removing all heavy through traffic from Downend, Mangotsfield, Warmley, Oldland Common and Hanham. Yet still there is this reticence about the final line, which in some places is unclear to my constituents whose homes may well be affected, as well as the very presence of the road eventually obstructing the way of life of ordinary people.
The clouds of planning blight which first hovered over homes in the Bromley Heath and Downend areas when Gloucestershire county council announced the first plans for the loop road in 1965 have now spread right across the constituency to areas of Warmley and Hanham. It has proved difficult for people living anywhere near the proposed road line to dispose of their homes when they have wanted to move. It has also proved almost impossible for would-be house purchasers to raise mortgages. Even home owners wanting to improve their property have been refused improvement grants because of the proposed road.
As the Member of Parliament for the area, I have taken up numerous individual problems of owners affected by these proposals. In one instance, a Downend man was granted planning consent by the Kingswood district council, the planning authority, to extend his home, but was then refused an improvement grant to carry out the work because his home could—only "could "—be affected by one of the various lines that the road might eventually take.
The people affected in this way need to know whether their homes will be affected. Successive local authorities have been prepared to leave them in no-man's land, not knowing what the future holds for them and their families. It is high time that all this was cleared up and that people were told, one way or another, what is to happen to their property.
Further, will my hon. Friend request the Avon county council to look at the westerly end of the road, to announce the route of the first section of the proposed road and to submit a detailed planning application to the Kingswood district council by not later than 31st January 1979? I say this because that would give ample time in which to deal with objections which may be lodged by local residents in accordance with their democratic rights and allow time for purchase of land for the road. It is important that we have an early decision on that planning application.
Also, when my hon. Friend speaks to Avon county council will he make sure that its proposed programme for the second section is brought forward to avoid delays? It is important that the sections coincide with each other to avoid delay in completion and to avoid traffic bottlenecks. I shall say more about that shortly.
The section of the road at Warmley between the A420 and the A431 will, I understand, be constructed by the developers of the 400 acres at Longwell Green. That has been confirmed to me in a letter from the Avon county council. The fear locally is that if the western section is completed up to the A431 and there is then a delay in proceeding further, that will bring all the traffic across to Hanham and there will be nowhere else for it to go other than on the existing


roads, which are very overcrowded at present.
Hanham, where I live, has suffered enough. Many houses in Memorial Road were acquired and demolished eight to ten years ago. The land has been left in a disgraceful state. Much of it is overgrown and covered with rubbish. Twice a year I have to write to the Avon county council, as owners of the land, to ask for the weeds to be cut down and the rubbish to be cleared.
These houses were acquired on the assumption that the road would be going through Memorial Road at Hanham. We are now told that the road will not be going that way at all. That has proved to be a colossal waste of money. I understand that some of these houses are now being offered to the housing authority and that the land is up for grabs. The "Corridor of Opportunity" across Stone-hill to a bridge over the Avon Valley is the way now preferred by the Avon county council.
The people of Hanham deserve to be told the truth about these proposals. First, how many homes will be affected by this section from the A431 to the river?
Secondly, will the road be sited near homes which have recently been built in the area, will those houses need to be insulated against noise and pollution, and if so, who will pay?
Thirdly, and perhaps more important, will the bridge which will have to be constructed over the picturesque Avon Valley be built so as to avoid spoiling Hencliffe Woods, an area of natural beauty? Does my hon. Friend envisage any problems about the bridge construction? The worry is that not only will the beauty of the area be ruined by the road but that the bridge will create a traffic bottleneck in Hanham and make matters worse for all the long-suffering people who live there.
The Kingswood district council has written to the Department of Transport at Gaunts House, Bristol saying that over the last two years national funds for major road schemes have been under-spent by approximately £65 million, particularly in the counties of Avon and Dorset. The council asked whether any

of those funds could be reallocated to finance the road at Kingswood. That road is urgently required, and early completion would solve many of the traffic problems in the area.
I know that the Minister will pay attention to that letter. I felt that I should mention it, as the local authority is trying hard to come to grips with this matter. Indeed, it felt that it should write to the Department on 11th December to support the views which I have expressed this evening.
There have also been reports in the local paper—as yet I have not been able to substantiate them—that the Avon county council has requested my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to approve the advancement of the programme by one year. Will the Minister confirm whether that is so? If it is, is there any chance of that happening? Will he also indicate when the Department of Transport will be able to give approval to the Avon county transport programme which was submitted on 31st July this year?
For all the reasons which I have advanced, there is a need for early completion of the Bristol East loop road. In a growing area such as Kingswood, which is trying hard to attract industry to the area, it will be invaluable. To the residents, who for a number of years have suffered traffic problems, pollution and lived under the threat of the road, it will be a godsend.
I therefore ask my hon. Friend to do all that he can to make sure that a speedy solution to the problems of my long-suffering constituents is undertaken at once. The people who live locally and the Kingswood district council believe that this can be achieved only by the early completion of the Bristol East fringe loop road.

2.10 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Kingswood (Mr. Walker) has been able to raise this subject on the Adjournment again. He has already raised it once—in December 1975. I know how important it is for his constituents in Kings-wood and Mangotsfield, and I also know how assiduous he has been in represent-


ing his constituents' interests in this matter.
In the earlier debate, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment made it clear that this scheme was essentially the concern of the responsible highway authority, which in this case is the Avon county council. I must say at the outset that the position in this respect remains unchanged. It is for the county council, and not my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to determine the future highway network within the framework of the county's transport policies and programmes and the priority to be given to new construction.
However, the question of an additional junction on the M4 at Pucklechurch is a matter for my Department. In fact, am not aware that the Department has refused to consider a request for an additional junction. To my knowledge, no such request has been made. I am doubtful whether the traffic demand would justify it, because there are interchanges three miles either side of the one that he proposes. But if the county council puts a case to us we shall certainly give it urgent consideration, for clearly an interchange would facilitate access to and from the motorway. I think that was the point that my hon. Friend was making, and I give him the assurance: that we would consider this urgently if the case were put to us. However, I am sure he will accept that it would not diminish the need for the Bristol East loop road in any way whatever. I therefore turn to discuss that matter.
My hon. Friend will recall that I wrote to him after our meeting in July to let him know that the county had included in its 1979–80 transport policy and programme submission a five-year programme which makes provision, for the first time, for the construction of sections of the eastern loop road, although I understand that this description has been dropped in favour of a new scheme title—the Avon ring road. That will be a matter of some amusement to my hon. Friend, but none the less I understand that that is the position.
This covers the loop road scheme now programmed and also the old Bromley Heath link road scheme shown separately in the previous year's transport policy and programme, when provision was made for

land acquisition in the 1980s. I can, therefore, also answer a further question which my hon. Friend put, namely, whether the scheme has, in effect, been advanced by one year? The answer is "Yes ". By the inclusion in the 1979–80 programme in the way I have described, the scheme has been advanced by one year. The decision letter indicating our view about this will be going to the county council in the next few days.
I do not want to anticipate our general view of the county's overall transport proposals, but I can tell my hon. Friend that we have agreed to the proposal relating to the loop road, although we have also pointed out that, as it is now planned, there is some danger of a bunching effect towards the end of the five-year programme, which the council will have to watch carefully. None the less, in principle we are sympathetic to what the council wishes to do.
In the previous debate my hon. Friend outlined the history of these road proposals, and he mentioned them again on this occasion. I do not want to rehash the whole issue, but it might be useful if I give a resume of the more recent background.
In 1972 the local authorities concerned, together with the Department, British Rail and the Bristol Omnibus Company jointly appointed consultants to undertake the land use transportation study. In 1974 Avon county council became responsible for the study and a number of road schemes, including the Bristol ring road, were deferred pending the outcome of the study. All the recommended options of the study team included the construction of the east fringe loop road and the Hanham bridge over the Avon and approaches from A31 and A4. The report also identified those road proposals which could be abandoned in the context of the strategies proposed. The county council subsequently decided not to proceed with a number of schemes including the Bristol ring road but, instead, projected a corridor for the east fringe loop road. Public consultation exercises were held by the county in 1975 on the location of the corridor, and the outcome is the scheme for the Avon ring road, as it is now called, included in the county council's transport policies and programmes for the next five years.
There are three schemes in the programme. The first is the section from A417A Bromley Heath to A432 Badminton Road and the county council hopes to start construction in 1982–83. The second section runs from A432 Badminton Road to A420 Kingswood, which is currently planned to start in 1983–84, and the third section from the A431 Hanham to A4 at Brislington, including a crossing of the River Avon, has not yet been given a planned start year although the county council hopes to start acquisition of the land needed for this scheme in 1982–83. The county hopes that the missing link between the A420 at Kings-wood and the A431 at Hanham will be provided as part of private development. and the construction of that link will be dependent on progress made with the development.
My hon. Friend asked a number of questions. First, he asked whether the line had been fixed. The answer is that it has not. However, he will be aware that the corridor in which the road is to run is pretty well clear. It is a narrow corridor, and it is possible to tell within 100 yards roughly where the road will eventually lie.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked whether I could exert pressure on the county council to agree to the fixing of the first section of the road, namely the Bromley Heath link, by 31st January 1979. I have no authority to seek to get the county council to agree to that fixing. However, it should be possible for the county council to fix that finally by the spring of next year. That will not be as early as my hon. Friend wishes, but that indicates that final decisions are imminent. A certain amount of further consultation has to take place, and the county council will have the statutory obligation to consult the Kingswood district council.
It is not necessary for the Avon council to obtain detailed planning permission from the district council. It can, in effect, give itself planning permission to go ahead. There is no obstacle to planning permission for the Avon council.
My hon. Friend asked me whether I could request the county council to bring forward the second section of the road following on the first section that we have

discussed. It is for Avon council to determine its priorities. It must be allowed to exercise its local option. I well understand the priorities of my hon. Friend.
My hon. Friend urged that the construction of the separate sections should be as close in time as is possible. That is always a problem when constructing roads of this sort. There is a particular problem with the section south of the A431 that runs towards Hanham where my hon. Friend lives. It might not be quite as disastrous as my hon. Friend fears, because the county council will take a close look at possible traffic management schemes before that final piece of the road is put into place. I am sure that that will mitigate some of the problems. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important to construct the sections consecutively so that as little traffic as possible is allowed to flow through roads which are unsuitable for them.
My hon. Friend asked how many homes would be affected. I do not have the answer. But the present route, which goes mainly through open country, is less devastating than the original proposal. My hon. Friend also asked about insulation. The road will go near some new homes, and insulation will be a matter for the county council. It will pay for insulation under present legislation. There are limits on insulation. The proximity to the road must be taken into account. That leads to hard feelings among those who are too far away to qualify for insulation.
I agree that it is important to have careful landscaping at Hencliffe Woods. I hope that that will be taken into account.
My hon. Friend referred to a letter from the Kingswood district council to the Department about the understanding that underspending could be diverted. Unfortunately, underspending in one year cannot be transferred to the next year. Each year is a separate watertight compartment. But substantially more money will be available for local roads, partly because a little more money is available. We are not cutting public expenditure to the extent that we were cutting it two or three years ago. We suspect that as our trunk road programme declines room will be made for such schemes. More money should be available, at the appropriate


time, for this scheme. In the next financial year money will not be available for that scheme. We are still at the initial planning stage. The prospects for increased spending on local schemes are good for the next two or three years.
I assure my hon. Friend that I shall do all that I can to speed the solution of

these long-standing problems in Kingswood, about which he and his constituents are so anxious. This is the type of local scheme which I wish to encourage.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Two o'clock.